ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Taxi and Private Hire Industry

Paul Blomfield: What representations he has received on his proposed reforms to the regulation of the taxi and private hire industry.

Robert Goodwill: The Department undertook a targeted consultation in January with the intention of seeking immediate reactions to three proposed taxi and private hire vehicle measures, for inclusion in the Deregulation Bill. Our position on the measures is clear: they are liberalising, cost-saving steps that will benefit many thousands of small businesses and customers throughout the country.

Paul Blomfield: I must tell the Minister that drivers in Sheffield have expressed grave concern to me about his proposals. They fear that these rushed changes, which will allow minicab operators to subcontract bookings to other operators in a different district, could result in drivers working hundreds of miles away from their home licensing authority, and that our licensing authority in Sheffield would be unable to carry out effective enforcement. Does the Minister share those drivers’ fear that the changes will put the public’s safety at risk?

Robert Goodwill: No, I do not. In fact, I believe that the changes will give the public a better service. For example, if someone rings a private hire vehicle company and all its vehicles—or, perhaps, all its disabled-access vehicles—are occupied, it will be able to call on another company from across the border to fill the gap. People will get the service that they want, and I do not believe that safety will be compromised at all.

Richard Burden: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that if his proposals are implemented, someone who gets into a minicab will not know whether it has come from the company that he or she telephoned, will not be able to assume that the person driving it is licensed to do so, and will not even be able to assume that the car itself has been passed as okay to carry passengers in his or her own town or city? Expert opinion after expert opinion has warned the Minister that all this could put passengers’ safety at risk. Why does he feel that he knows better than anyone else?

Robert Goodwill: I do not accept those criticisms. The fact that a company is registered across the border in another local authority area does not mean that it will not meet the standards that apply in that local authority area. This is about more flexibility and a better service for people using private hire vehicles.

East-West Route

Duncan Hames: What consideration he has given to extending the proposed east-west route from Oxford to Bristol or Cardiff.

Robert Goodwill: Passenger train services that could use the east-west route could be extended to Bristol. However, additional capacity on parts of the Great Western main line is likely to be required to accommodate the additional services.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Before long, we shall start to look at the specifications for the next Great Western franchise, and services along that route could stop at a reopened Corsham station. Given the importance of our ambitions for Corsham in the strategic economic plan, how should we go about including those services in the next franchise?

Robert Goodwill: I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s aspiration to reopen Corsham station, which closed in 1962, even before the Beeching cuts. We are reopening 45 miles of the Oxford to Bedford line, and I believe that the long-term aspiration is to extend it to Peterborough, which would possibly include reopening Corsham station. However, when it comes to aspirations, I think we are looking at the next decade.

New Rolling Stock

Andrew Griffiths: What plans he has to introduce new rolling stock on the railways.

Mark Menzies: What plans he has to introduce new rolling stock on the railways.

Patrick McLoughlin: In the coming years, passengers will see significant increases in the amount of rolling stock on the railways, thanks to the Government’s investment. More than 3,100 new carriages will be in service by the end of 2019, including new rolling stock serving the Thameslink commuter routes north and south of London, new Crossrail trains from Reading through London to Essex and Kent, and new intercity express programme trains serving the east coast, Wales and the south-west.

Andrew Griffiths: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the biggest investment in our railways since the Victorian era, but may I beg him to spend just a little of that money on some new rolling stock for the Derby to Crewe line? People are currently unable to get on to trains to travel to Uttoxeter race course before the race meetings start, and we are seeing crowds struggling to get on to trains after the meetings have finished. Just a little of that money would be welcome in Uttoxeter.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning a line that goes through my constituency. As one who has regularly caught the train from Crewe to Derby, I understand the point that he is making. It is, of course, up to East Midlands Trains to look at the way in which the line is serviced, but I hope that we shall see an upgrade in the not-too-distant future.

Mark Menzies: What plans has the Secretary of State to modernise rolling stock in the north-west, especially on the South Fylde line, in conjunction with station modernisation?

Patrick McLoughlin: One question asked of me quite regularly is what has been the biggest change since I was first appointed to the Department for Transport 25 years ago, and I have to say to my hon. Friend that one of the biggest changes is the demand for more and more rail services. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the particular services in his constituency and how we can best meet the increasing demand we are seeing right across the country for railway services.

Louise Ellman: Investment in rail is welcome, but what new steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that when individual lines are electrified, appropriate rolling stock is available immediately?

Patrick McLoughlin: The Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport makes an important point about the commitment the Government are making to electrification. I will not remind her of the figures on electrification over the 13 years that her party were in government—it was some 10 miles, I think. We are planning to do 880 miles in this programme of rail electrification and modernisation, and she is absolutely right to say that we have got to make sure we get the rolling stock in line and in order as well.

Phil Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is great potential for the rolling stock for High Speed 2 to be built by Hitachi in my constituency in the north-east of the England, creating hundreds of direct jobs and thousands in the supply chain, and is he aware that Hitachi built the original bullet train almost 50 years ago?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am indeed aware of what Hitachi is doing in the north-east and I very much welcome the Hitachi foreign investment into the north-east and its decision to base its world headquarters here in London. It is a great sign of confidence in the way that the Government are attracting inward investment into this country. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right about the investment opportunities that HS2 offers, not just in terms of rolling stock but right across the whole railway piece. There will of course be a competition and I have no doubt that it will be matched by Bombardier and other companies.

Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend accept that although deep cleaning and refurbishment of rolling stock is important, there is a pressing need for new rolling stock on the commuter line from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street, and can he tell the House whether having new rolling stock could be a condition of the long-term franchise from 2016?

Patrick McLoughlin: I hear the representations my right hon. Friend makes to me now, and has made to me on many occasions privately, about the desire for new rolling stock on that line. It will be something I will want to consider when we look at the franchising agreements we will put forward.

Mary Creagh: The £5 billion project to electrify the Great Western main line has been hit by flooding, bats on bridges and lengthy road closures which have crippled businesses in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer the House that the electrification work will be completed by 2017 when those new intercity express trains will be ready to run?

Patrick McLoughlin: The points the hon. Lady makes about forward orders and the fact that that new rolling stock is due to come on board by 2017 with the electrification of that line are very important. I have every confidence that Network Rail will rise to the challenge to deliver what it has set out to deliver in the rail investment strategy. Quite often attacks are made on Network Rail, but I think we can all stand back and think of the remarkable way in which it managed to re-establish the line through Dawlish and the work it did working almost 24/7.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but it was his Department’s mismanagement of the Thameslink rolling stock contract that meant it took two full years to close the deal with Siemens. That project will finish three years late in 2018 and our colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee said last October:
	“We are sceptical that the programme will be delivered by 2018 given the delays in awarding the contract for new trains”.
	So on Thameslink we could have new track but no trains, and on the Great Western line we could have new trains but no track to run them on. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that this is no way to run a railway?

Patrick McLoughlin: I simply say to the hon. Lady that this Government have announced the biggest investment programme in the railway industry that we have seen in this country and I am very proud of that. Of course there will always be problems. I think the Thameslink programme was actually Thameslink 2000 so it has overrun—that is certainly true—but at the end of the day we are going to get a far, far better commuter service for all the people in the areas served by that line.

Bob Russell: Successive Governments have short-changed East Anglia. As somebody who uses the rail service from Colchester to London Liverpool Street, I ask the Secretary of State, on behalf of my commuters, to include Greater Anglia in his roll-call of those companies that will get new rolling stock.

Patrick McLoughlin: I hear the hon. Gentleman’s representations. The simple fact is that we are seeing massive investment in rolling stock, and there are demands for even greater such investment, but that has to be balanced with the investment that we are seeing on the tracks. As I have said, we are embarking on a new round
	of spending on the railways, with some £38.5 billion by Network Rail plus the investment in rolling stock as well.

Rolling Stock (North of England)

Sharon Hodgson: What steps he is taking to ensure adequate provision of rolling stock in the north of England.

Debbie Abrahams: What steps he is taking to ensure adequate provision of rolling stock in the north of England.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Department has recently agreed terms with Northern Rail for the introduction of electric trains between Liverpool and Manchester. Northern Rail will be able to transfer additional diesel carriages on to trains operating on other busy routes in order to further relieve the crowding. TransPennine Express has seen capacity increase with the introduction of the new Class 350 trains.

Sharon Hodgson: The Secretary of State will be aware that the rolling stock on Tyne and Wear metro is undergoing refurbishment, but that is little consolation to the residents of Washington who do not even have a station. Nexus has recently outlined plans for three stations in Washington as part of an extension to the metro network, and the North East local enterprise partnership has agreed to undertake the business case. Will the Secretary of State commit his officials to working closely with both parties to ensure that the business case is as strong and compelling as it can be?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. The Newcastle metro has been running for some time and is now undergoing a desperately needed upgrade. There is no doubt in my mind that the original metro regenerated areas that had been in serious decline. We are always looking at ways in which we can best expand those services. I am more than happy for those conversations to take place.

Debbie Abrahams: The daily commute of many of my Saddleworth constituents is akin to that of sardines travelling in a can. On top of that, we now know that some of Northern Rail’s diesel stock may be transferred to TransPennine Express to supplement the gap left by the TPE stock transfer to the Chiltern Railways. What guarantee will the Secretary of State give my constituents that that transfer will not happen?

Patrick McLoughlin: What we have set out to do is match, where we possibly can, the growing passenger capacity with the availability of the railway network. As I have pointed out, a huge amount of new rolling stock is coming on line in the next few years. I therefore hope that we will be able to relieve some of the initial problems that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Philip Davies: I hope the Secretary of State will agree that Northern Rail has some of the worst rolling stock in the country on its lines, and I
	hope that that is something he will address. I hope he will also agree that the Airedale and Wharfedale lines are some of the most congested on the railway network and that they need additional capacity. What is he doing to provide better and longer trains on those lines?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I have just been setting out in the answers we have given the huge amount of investment that we are making in the new rolling stock that are coming on to our railways. I hope my hon. Friend’s frustration will not continue in the longer term.

Julie Hilling: Given the loss of nine trains already to the south of England, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that more trains cannot be taken from TransPennine Express or Northern Rail during the direct award period before the franchise is re-let in 2016?

Patrick McLoughlin: I understand very much the case that the hon. Lady makes for the services in Bolton, and I am keen to see those services improved and increased. As a result of the huge amount of money we are spending on investment in the railway sector, her constituents will get a far better railway in the future than they had under the previous Government.

A14 and Weekley-Warkton Bypass

Philip Hollobone: If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport will visit the sites of the proposed junction 10A on the A14 and the proposed Weekley-Warkton bypass, and meet representatives of Kettering borough council to discuss those proposals on 23 May 2014. [R]

Robert Goodwill: Yes I will.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Minister for his positive response. Because of the thousands of new houses being built in and around Kettering, these two projects, which will cost a total of £60 million, are vital not only to unlock £1 billion of economic development under the Treasury Green Book rules but to prevent the town of Kettering from grinding to a halt because of all the extra traffic.

Robert Goodwill: I think that my hon. Friend found out that I was due to be in Corby that day to open a new road, so I will be able to combine the two visits. This is a £40 million to £50 million scheme to which we have no policy objections, but as it will unlock potential development for up to 5,000 houses and improve access to the business and energy parks, I think that it is only fair that those who stand to gain—that is, the developers and the local authority, through the new homes bonus—should pay some of the costs.

Andy Sawford: When the Minister is in north Northamptonshire, will he ensure that his visit to Kettering does not eat into the time he has with us to celebrate the opening of the new Kettering to Corby link road? In my dealings with the Minister I have found him to be an even-handed and fair-minded man, so will he acknowledge that because of the lead-in,
	this project is very much a result of the work of the previous Labour Government and of Phil Hope, the then MP for Corby?

Robert Goodwill: I would just add that this Government have tripled investment in roads, whereas I seem to remember that in 1997, when the Blair Government came to power, there was a moratorium on building roads. I look forward to coming to Corby. I think I will be calling in at Newark on the way home.

A1 (Dualling)

Alan Beith: What progress his Department has made on its study of proposals to dual the remaining single carriageway sections of the A1.

Patrick McLoughlin: The A1 north of Newcastle study is one of six studies to identify and fund solutions to a number of notorious and long-standing hot spots on the road network. The next working group takes place on 21 May to discuss the evidence review stage, after which the study will consider the potential investment options before making its recommendations later this year.

Alan Beith: Since the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a firm commitment a year ago and the Transport Secretary has given the scheme his strong personal support, can he get a move on? At the moment, with all these studies, it feels a bit like being stuck in slow-moving traffic on the A1.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think we are making progress. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his question the fact that the Chief Secretary is involved. If the Chief Secretary and the Transport Secretary are of one mind on this, I very much hope that we will be able to make some progress.

Nick Brown: What accounts for the delay between the tentative announcement of yet another study and the setting up of the study? What is left to be studied of this much-studied question? Will the Transport Secretary confirm to the House that the study is but a prelude to the commencement of the actual work?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I will look at the wording of that when I see it in Hansard. This is an important road and a lot of work has already gone on to widen the A1, as well as a lot of work that is being undertaken at present. We are now talking about the area north of Newcastle and it is important that when the works are being carried out, measures are put in place to deal with the environmental consequences and the objections that people might raise.

Waterloo to Weymouth Line

Christopher Chope: What steps his Department is taking to improve journey times and passenger capacity on the Waterloo to Weymouth rail line.

Robert Goodwill: There are no specific improvements to journey times and passenger capacity currently planned on the Waterloo to Weymouth line. However, the rail investment strategy requires additional capacity into Waterloo to meet extra demand of 9,700 passengers in the morning peak period by 2018. This could benefit the Weymouth line.

Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for that rather disappointing response. Will he explain why we are going to spend a fortune in taxpayers’ money speeding up the journey times between London and Birmingham when those journeys are already 50% faster than those between Southampton and London?

Robert Goodwill: In every part of the country that I travel to, I am told that there are capacity constraints, but there is no simple solution to the problem. I am aware that the journey time from Christchurch into London is two hours and 10 minutes, which is longer than my journey from York to King’s Cross. Of course, the problem is often that faster services have fewer stops. For example, the fastest train on this line does not stop at Christchurch.

Caroline Dinenage: More people now travel through Waterloo in three hours every morning than through Heathrow in an entire day, but train services to the south coast remain painfully slow, as has been mentioned. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking into ways by which travel times, particularly to Portsmouth, can be reduced and services speeded up, because it is affecting business investment in our region?

Robert Goodwill: As additional capacity is provided at Waterloo, which is the busiest station in the country with almost 100 million passengers per year, that will allow more flexibility further afield, but this is part of the problem of addressing the tremendous increase in passenger ridership that has occurred since privatisation.

HS2 Skills Academy

Karen Lumley: What plans he has to set up an HS2 skills academy.

Patrick McLoughlin: In January, the Government announced its intention to set up a new high speed rail college to boost the development of railway and engineering skills across the UK. In March, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills launched a consultation to identify the location for the new main site. Responses are currently being assessed and we intend to make an announcement of the preferred site later this year. The college is expected to open in 2017.

Karen Lumley: Does the Secretary of State agree with me, though, that to show the country that HS2 is also about rebalancing the economy, it is vital that the academy is built either in the midlands—please—or even further north?

Patrick McLoughlin: We saw at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time a number of bids, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain
	Stewart), who is not allowed to ask me a question today on this issue. So the bids are coming from far and wide, and I am very pleased about that.

Jim Cunningham: May we make a bid for the new skills academy to be located in the west midlands, preferably in the Coventry area? The Government promised to publish a jobs and skills strategy for high-speed rail last July. It is almost a year and nothing has been produced. Can the Secretary of State give us a date when it will be published?

Patrick McLoughlin: Let me deal with whether the academy should be in Coventry in the west midlands. Of course, the west midlands is a very large area. From Coventry to Wolverhampton to Birmingham, all those areas are making bids for the college and I am very pleased about that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) is saying that Stoke-on-Trent is in the west midlands. It is in the west midlands government area, but I am talking about the old west midlands metropolitan areas, which he may sort of remember.

Marcus Jones: The skills academy is vital so that we ensure that HS2 is built by skilled British workers. Notwithstanding the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), where better to build the skills academy in the geographical heart of the country, at the centre of this project, than in Nuneaton?

Patrick McLoughlin: I had a very interesting visit with my hon. Friend when I went to Nuneaton station, when he made the case for a number of extra services that he would like to see calling there. I understand his bid for the academy. I am slightly worried as I am not sure what we will talk about on HS2 when we have made a decision on the location of the academy

Stephen Timms: One thing I think we will talk about is the review of connections between HS2 and the continent, which the Secretary of State announced almost two months ago. When does he envisage that review being complete?

Patrick McLoughlin: I hope to be able to update the House further on those proposals later this year and on the work that the Department is doing, which is at the moment being led by Sir David Higgins.

Andrew Bridgen: Is the Secretary of State aware, though, that if the station goes ahead in the east midlands at Toton, businesses will relocate from the centre of Derby and Nottingham around the Toton area, and also a new conurbation will be built, which will effectively join up Derby and Nottingham and denude both their city centres?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We need to ensure that development takes place in the whole area around where the new stations are going to be, and that there are infrastructure interconnections with those areas. But it is fair to say that, on the second part of the route—from Birmingham
	to Manchester and from Birmingham to Leeds—we are out to consultation, and those consultations are being considered at the moment.

Gisela Stuart: I agree that the HS2 skills academy should be located at the centre of the project, which is right on Curzon street, on the east side of Birmingham. Is there any more information that the Secretary of State would require to convince him that that is the right location?

Patrick McLoughlin: A number of people are making bids and the hon. Lady is but one of them. She is absolutely right about the importance of Curzon street in this project, which I think will be of great benefit to Birmingham. I look forward to discussing these proposals further with Sir Albert Bore, who is leader of Birmingham city council.

Mike Kane: HS2 is obviously critical to my constituency’s development and also to the national interest. As the newest Member in this place—just—may I ask the Secretary of State to explain to me, in order to assist my development, where the Prime Minister and his AWOL colleagues were for those vital votes in the House last week?

Patrick McLoughlin: Once the hon. Gentleman is in the House—it does not matter how long he has been here—he has the equal authority of any other Member. He is trying to play on the fact that he is the newest Member of the House, but he is treated the same way as any other Member as regards questions. He did remind me that the proposed route for HS2 would go directly under his house, so he does have a direct interest. There has never been any doubt about the Prime Minister’s commitment to this project. Indeed, his name is on the Bill. The only person who had doubts about the project was the shadow Chancellor, and I was very glad to see that he voted for the Bill last week.

Spare Parts (Rail Network)

Therese Coffey: What assessment he has made of the level of availability of spare parts for the rail network.

Robert Goodwill: Rolling stock spares are a matter for the train operators. They are required to have arrangements in place to maintain their leased trains so that they can deliver the performance level defined in their franchise agreement. I am aware of the specific problem of replacement wheels on my hon. Friend’s line.

Therese Coffey: Services on the Felixstowe to Ipswich line were disrupted for a number of reasons, one of which was the lack of availability of wheel sets around the entire network. I recognise that this is a matter for the rail companies to sort out themselves, but I hope that the Department can have a word with strategic partners, including with leasing companies and manufacturers.

Robert Goodwill: Abellio Greater Anglia is well aware of the problem and has given us assurances that it is on top of it. The bad weather not only caused flood damage to
	some units, but caused a number of cases where brakes locked up and caused flats on the wheels so, instead of being able to re-profile the wheels perhaps six times during their life at 150,000-mile intervals, some of them were damaged beyond repair, which meant that there was a short-term shortage of those components.

Mark Lazarowicz: Another important part of the rail infrastructure is the overhead wire system. When will the Minister take action to ensure the improvement of overhead wires on the east coast main line to avoid disruptions to services, of which I am sure he is well aware, given his journeys to London?

Robert Goodwill: As somebody who uses the east coast main line regularly, I am aware that we have regular problems with overhead lines. If a line is brought down by a fast moving train, it can take some considerable time to repair. That is in marked contrast to the performance of High Speed 1, where we had no disruption, despite the bad weather over the winter, and we can expect similar very high levels of performance from High Speed 2.

Pedestrian Crossings

Natascha Engel: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the amount of time allowed for pedestrians to use pedestrian crossings.

Robert Goodwill: Local councils are responsible for setting pedestrian crossing timings with reference to the guidance walking speed of 1.2 metres per second. The Department is conducting a review of traffic signing legislation, and once that is complete will consider the need to update the guidance.

Natascha Engel: Having rushed across many roads to get here in time for this question, I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he carry out that review as quickly as possible? The legislation has not been looked at since the 1950s and a recent review suggested that three quarters of elderly people struggle to cross the road before the signals change. Will he please look into the matter urgently?

Robert Goodwill: I certainly will. We are reviewing the situation. The green man is an invitation to cross. When the green man is extinguished, there is still time to cross. The updated puffin crossings have movement detectors, which allow extra time to be given. We are looking at other types of crossing as well, which will further improve the situation.

Potholes

Rehman Chishti: What financial assistance he is providing to local authorities for the repair of potholes.

Patrick McLoughlin: In the 2014 Budget, the Government announced a £200 million pothole fund for the financial year 2014-15. Some £168 million is being made available
	to councils in England, including up to £10 million for London. This is enough to fix over 3 million potholes. The fund is a competition, and bidding guidance was published on 24 April detailing how local authorities can submit their bids to the Department for Transport by 22 May. This is in addition to the £4.7 billion that we are providing for local road maintenance in this Parliament.

Rehman Chishti: Medway council has filled nearly 4,000 potholes in just over 10 months, so it will welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. However, Medway has also been affected by the emergence of sinkholes, including one at Rainham Mark grammar school. What are the Government doing to address the emergence of sinkholes across the country?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am aware that a number of sinkholes appeared across the country during this year’s severe winter weather, including those that my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Government have been working, and will continue to work, with the British Geological Survey on sinkholes. It is important that any lessons learnt are shared with local authorities and other transport operators to ensure that our infrastructure has greater resilience against future severe weather events.

Barry Gardiner: Residents in the Queensbury, Northwick Park and Preston wards in my constituency would be very grateful if part of the remaining £50 million from the fund could make its way to the potholes in their wards. They would be even more pleased if those roads with extensive potholes could have a complete surface repair, because they are fed up with seeing potholes repaired one year and then having to be re-repaired the next winter. The money should be spent on solving the problem comprehensively, not addressing it in a piecemeal fashion.

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree entirely. Some councils have shown excellent ways of doing that through a holistic approach, and I commend them for that. I was in Northampton recently to see what the local council has done there. It has taken on board the point the hon. Gentleman makes. I hope that other authorities will do likewise.

Crossrail

Rob Wilson: What recent assessment he has made of progress on Crossrail.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Crossrail project is progressing well. Over 20 miles of tunnels under London have now been completed, which is 78% of all the tunnelling. While focus is being maintained on delivering the infrastructure, work is now well underway on the operational phases, making Crossrail a fully operational railway. Crossrail is on course to be delivered by the scheduled opening date of December 2018 for the central section, with full services commencing in 2019.

Rob Wilson: I am grateful to the Government for recently correcting the terrible error of the previous Government, who would have stopped Crossrail at Maidenhead, rather than Reading. The local enterprise
	partnership and local businesses support my view that unlocking Crossrail’s full potential will require some semi-fast services, rather than the slow metro service currently proposed from Reading into London. Will my right hon. Friend support Thames Valley Berkshire LEP, local businesses and me by doing everything he can to deliver the economic boost that the right Crossrail will bring to Reading and the Thames valley region?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on this massive project, which is important both for London and for the outlying areas. I will be more than happy to discuss it with him as we develop the programme and the timetables.

Topical Questions

Rehman Chishti: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: The House will recall that five weeks ago the HGV user levy came into force. I am pleased to say that in that short period the levy has generated £7.6 million in revenue from overseas hauliers and achieved a mainland payment compliance rate of 96%. Thanks to the actions of this Government, foreign hauliers are at last paying for their use of British roads.

Rehman Chishti: Driver distraction is a major cause of death and serious injury on our roads, and it has been the focus of a leading campaign by the charity Brake. What are the Government doing to work with such organisations to tackle driver distraction? By way of a digression, I was given the “parliamentarian of the year” award by Brake for campaigning on road safety.

Patrick McLoughlin: I have known of Brake’s work for many years, as one of its founding members was the relative of a victim who died in my constituency. I think that the whole question of driver distraction is important. I am still amazed by the number of people who use mobile phones while driving. In August 2013 the Government increased the penalty for using a mobile phone while driving from £60 to £100. I will look at the matter and review it in due course.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) deserves the hearty congratulations of the House, and I feel sure that the award is prominently displayed in his home.

Gordon Marsden: The Government are blocking an EU directive that bus drivers should have disability awareness training. In January, the Minister promised me a review in March, but in response to a later question he seemed to back off that promise. With my letter on this to his Lords colleague at the end of March still unanswered, when will the Government keep his promise to the House and stop letting disabled people down?

Robert Goodwill: I will certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a reply to his letter. I am somewhat surprised that he has not had one already, but I will find out what has gone wrong. As we discussed
	in Westminster Hall recently, the voluntary approach is working very well with over 75% of drivers having this sort of training, which is important to ensure that disabled people have equal access to all forms of transport.

Stuart Andrew: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had the opportunity to travel on the M1 between Leeds and Sheffield recently. It is a pig of a journey due to a 17-mile stretch of roadworks with a 50 mph enforced speed limit. I recognise the need for those roadworks, but is there any reason why they cannot be done in stages to improve the experience for motorists?

Robert Goodwill: I have indeed travelled on that section of the M1 and it does seem to go on for ever. However, I am assured by the Highways Agency that doing the work in this way will incur a time saving of two thirds compared with doing it in stages. When we do such work, which includes replacement of steel central barriers with concrete ones, it improves repair time and over the long term will certainly improve road performance.

Sheila Gilmore: East Coast’s current operator, Directly Operated Railways, was barred from bidding for the east coast franchise. The Secretary of State presumably welcomes the bid from Eurostar-Keolis, which is largely owned by French state railways. Is it not time to change policy and to allow Directly Operated Railways to bid for franchises?

Patrick McLoughlin: There are a number of reasons why it would not be right to allow that to happen, not least because it would be funded directly through the taxpayer. That would put Directly Operated Railways at a great disadvantage compared with other companies in the private sector. The east coast and west coast franchises cannot be compared as they are very different, not least because, at the moment, East Coast runs 155 services a day compared with the 324 services on the west coast line.

Fiona Bruce: The proposed Congleton link road will help to boost the economy across the east Cheshire region, relieving not only local town congestion, but that along the M6, both of which are frequently described as chronic. It will also improve access to and from Crewe station. Will the Minister consider making Government funding available to fund this vital link road project?

Robert Goodwill: I understand that the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership has submitted a bid for local growth fund funding to support the Congleton link road as part of its strategic economic plan. We are currently assessing the plans and bids submitted by every LEP in England and we hope to be able to make an announcement in July.

Barry Gardiner: Mr Shah and other wheelchair users in my constituency will be disappointed by the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) in relation to the disability awareness training for bus drivers under EU regulation 181/2011. They tell me that drivers simply say, “Sorry mate, the lift is not working” or “the ramp is not working.” Sometimes they drive by with their thumb down and
	ignore them. Only 28% of drivers have received such training. When will the Minister get on and act on the regulation?

Mr Speaker: I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that his assiduity is not in question, but his ability to distinguish between a substantive and a topical question in terms of length perhaps is.

Robert Goodwill: We feel we should take the voluntary route, but I certainly understand the problem. Indeed, one of my noble Friends at the other end of the corridor told me that they sometimes have to put somebody outside to flag down a taxi so that a disabled Member of the other place can then get into it. It is not just about training and awareness; it is about the attitude of taxi drivers, which cannot be instilled through training.

Julian Smith: From Gargrave to Embsay and from Masham to Ripon, communities across Skipton and Ripon are concerned about cuts to rural bus services. What more can Ministers do to work with the most rural parts of our communities on buses? Will they look very favourably at North Yorkshire county council’s bid to the sustainable transport fund, which closes later this month?

Robert Goodwill: As a North Yorkshire Member myself, I am aware of some of the changes to rural bus services that are affecting my constituents as well as my hon. Friend’s. The fact remains that, outside London, 44% of the fare box that goes to bus operators is provided through various subsidies. We need to be more intelligent in targeting the services that people, particularly pensioners, use in rural areas.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Earlier this morning in Westminster, the Freight Transport Association launched its excellent 2014 logistics report. One policy area success that has eluded successive Governments is in the promotion of coastal shipping. What are the Government doing in this regard?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have not yet had time to read the report as it was published only this morning. The way in which coastal shipping works and links with the rail network is very important, and we need to develop it even further. I had a very interesting meeting yesterday with one operator who is drawing directly from ports into Drax power station.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend will know that many of the 8,000 miles of roads in Devon are blighted by potholes. Will he therefore join me in congratulating Devon county council on its online pothole advisory system and the efficient way in which it is tackling the problem? May I also press him to consider very seriously Devon county council’s bid for some of the additional funds that were announced in the Budget?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed. Before the year-end, we allocated extra money to local authorities that they were encouraged to spend on potholes and to show how they had spent it. That will have a bearing on how we allocate the future fund for local authorities that the Chancellor made available in the Budget.

Robert Flello: Does the Secretary of State share my profound concern that roadside recovery operators working on our motorways have been instructed that they must continue to work when they have asked for a lane closure, even for safety reasons, but the Highways Agency has refused that closure? This is putting people’s lives at risk. Will he order an urgent inquiry and put an immediate stop to this dangerous practice?

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. It is the first time it has been brought to my attention, and I will certainly have a conversation with the Highways Agency. Our smart motorways schemes make it much easier to close lanes and move traffic, so it should not be a problem on those sections of road. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman with the reply I receive.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are time constrained, but a short one-sentence question will suffice.

Peter Luff: The railway line from my constituency to London is probably the worst in the country for regularity, speed and reliability. May I urge the Secretary of State to persuade Network Rail and First Great Western to take this Cinderella line to the ball at last?

Patrick McLoughlin: If my hon. Friend was here at the start of questions, he will have heard a number of Members call for better services in their areas. I think the line that he mentions does get substantial investment as a result of the intercity express programme, and I therefore hope he will get the better services he wants.

Stephen Timms: Further to his earlier answer, will the Secretary of State update us on links from HS2 to the continent before or after the summer recess?

Patrick McLoughlin: It will be either one of those.

Jeremy Lefroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome news about the heavy goods vehicle levy shows that this was a long overdue reform that will create a level playing field for UK hauliers?

Patrick McLoughlin: The levy has made a remarkable difference. It sends a positive message to foreign hauliers that if they come to this country they have to make a contribution to the cost of maintaining the road network. I am very pleased that we have been able to do this. It has been warmly welcomed by the freight industry in this country.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Welsh Language

Glyn Davies: What steps he is taking to promote use of the Welsh language in the business of the House.

Tom Brake: Diolch—thank you. Members can use Welsh in the proceedings of the House in short extracts, but a translation for the benefit of non-Welsh speakers should be provided. The House agreed in 2001 to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure that witnesses before Select Committees should be able to give evidence in Welsh.

Glyn Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On the civil service, Welsh-language legislation applies to every aspect of the work of the House, so will he reassure me that every Department is committed to working in a way that fully recognises its legal obligations in compliance with the Welsh Language Act 1993?

Tom Brake: I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he does in promoting the Welsh language. I know that he recently held an important Westminster Hall debate on Welsh identity and, of course, the language played an important part in that debate. The Government are indeed committed to the Welsh language and are fully committed to providing Government services in the Welsh language where there is demand for them.

Paul Flynn: The use of the Welsh language is still treated as though it is secondary to that of English, inevitably. Sensible arrangements can be made. Other Parliaments deal with half a dozen languages. Should we not look to the Welsh parliamentary party to do the same work it did brilliantly 18 years ago and suggest practical arrangements of reasonable value that will allow anyone who wishes to make a speech in the Welsh language in this Chamber or elsewhere when Welsh business is being discussed to do so?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I have set out ways in which Welsh is provided for in Select Committees. The impact assessment for the Wales Bill was also translated into Welsh, so action is being taken where it can be.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch yn fawr iawn. I support the comments of the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). About half of those who took part in yesterday’s Welsh Grand Committee debate on the Budget were fluent, first-language Welsh speakers. Surely the sittings of the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee should be held bilingually, thereby making Welsh an official language of this Parliament, the same as English and Norman French.

Tom Brake: I certainly welcome opportunities for debates on the subject of Wales and, of course, the Wales Bill has provided such an opportunity. I am also very pleased that in the past the Backbench Business Committee has been able to provide time to debate Welsh matters, and I hope that will continue.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Dining Room Hire Charges

Laurence Robertson: How much money the Commission estimates will be received for the financial year 2014-15 as a result of the
	introduction of room hire charges for all the dining rooms in the House; and if he will make a statement.

Frank Doran: I will answer on behalf of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). On the catering services budget for 2014-15, the target is to achieve room hire sales of £873,000, comprising £258,000 from the introduction of third-party banqueting events and £615,000 from Member-funded and Member-sponsored events.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. This is the first time in my 17 years in the House that I have been moved to ask a question in House of Commons Commission questions. Tonight I will host, on behalf of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries, a charity dinner in the House in aid of the Injured Jockeys Fund. The room hire charge, however, will be more than £3,000, which will have to come out of the money we would otherwise provide to the charity. I have raised the issue with the Chairman of the Administration Committee and understand that room hire charges are being looked at, but may I ask for help on the matter, particularly with regard to charity events?

Frank Doran: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The difficulty is that this whole process was started because of the budget requirements following the serious cuts faced by the House authorities. The rates charged are based on benchmarking from a whole selection of other organisations that provide such facilities. The figure paid at present is 25% below the benchmark. In addition, significant reductions are available right across the board, including for charities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the organisation to which he refers will take advantage of that. The Administration Committee is constantly reviewing the whole process.

Kevin Brennan: But these charges are seriously inhibiting the work of many hon. Members who work with all-party groups, which often do not represent wealthy interests. May I make a plea that we do not turn this place into a conference centre and that we look again at the charges and the impact they are having on the work of Members of this House?

Frank Doran: I can only answer by referring to what I said to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). The Administration Committee has this matter under constant review, and it is on the agenda for its next meeting.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Written Questions and Answers (Processing)

Andrew Stephenson: What steps he is taking to support the House in rationalising the processing of written questions and answers and in improving the service to hon. Members.

Andrew Lansley: The Government are supporting the project being undertaken by the House to enable the electronic exchange of parliamentary questions and answers between Members and answering bodies. All Departments are fully engaged in the roll-out of this exciting project, and my office has successfully transferred to the live system.

Andrew Stephenson: Will the Leader of the House tell us what effect the project will have on savings for the House and on the convenience of Members?

Andrew Lansley: I expect the new system to save significant sums in this Parliament and across Departments, including by reducing the costs of publishing questions and answers. The new system will also improve reporting and transparency for Members and the public, through providing dedicated webpages for written answers.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Leader of the House tell the House which Department is the quickest at answering questions, which Department is the slowest and how the former might tutor the latter?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that we do not measure the average time taken to answer questions, but on the extent to which Departments meet the required standard, my recollection—I do not have the figures in front of me—is that the Office of the Leader of the House most consistently meets it. I might add that although the Department of Health had the largest number of questions, it was the second most successful in meeting the required standard. As for the poorest, my recollection is that although the Department for Education has made some modest improvement, it continues to strive to do better.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy

Jeremy Lefroy: What discussions the Commission has had on the provision of support for the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy.

Frank Doran: The Commission discussed the work of the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, including the provision of support, at its meeting on 20 January.

Jeremy Lefroy: When you announced your Commission, Mr Speaker, you said that it would be
	“unpredictable, potentially anarchic, and even quite fun.”
	I welcome the news about the support that will be given, but will the hon. Gentleman assure me that it will not in any way restrain the unpredictability, anarchy and fun that are essential for a readable report.

Frank Doran: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not part of the process, so I am not sure what fun is to be had. The project is certainly important. It is moving forward and will make a substantial improvement to the way in which this place works.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Parliamentary Questions (Ministry of Justice)

Graham Jones: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the time taken by that Department to answer written parliamentary questions.

Tom Brake: The Leader of the House often reminds ministerial colleagues of their obligations in regard to parliamentary scrutiny.

Graham Jones: On 10 March, I submitted to the Ministry of Justice a named day parliamentary question for written answer that—nine weeks later—is yet to be answered. On 26 March, some two weeks after the answer was due, I submitted a chase-up question to inquire when the original question would be answered. To date, neither of those questions has been answered. What is worse, my assistant in Westminster has telephoned the Department weekly, and each and every time he has been told that an answer is being finalised. I am concerned about the time taken for such questions to be answered. It makes it impossible for Members to hold the Executive to account, and it is a discourtesy to my constituents if Ministers simply do not answer these questions.

Tom Brake: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Like other large Departments, the Ministry of Justice receives a very large number of questions, and given the complex nature of its business a thorough response can take time. However, I agree that in the case of his particular question, it is simply not good enough: there needs to be a response. I know that the Secretary of State for Justice will want to take on board the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, and that he will in future ensure that Members receive timely answers setting out the information they need.

Thomas Docherty: I am very disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the House is not prepared to take up this case, and I hope that he will now promise to do so. The Procedure Committee’s report on the Government’s answering of written questions makes for very uncomfortable reading for many of his colleagues. Only the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had a greater deterioration in performance than the Ministry of Justice during the last Session. Further to the previous exchange, will he clarify whether the Ministry of Justice is covering up information or is just completely incompetent?

Tom Brake: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer that I gave to the last question. We have taken up the issue and I have indicated strongly that the Secretary of State for Justice needs to ensure that there is a response. The Secretary of State for Justice does not have the worst performing Department. I am sure that it is a matter of the Department ensuring that a detailed response to the question is provided, rather than the cover-up that the hon. Gentleman implies.

Parliamentary Questions (Use of Library)

Philip Davies: If he will ensure that Ministers place documents in the Library in accordance with their answers to parliamentary questions.

Tom Brake: This is a matter for individual Departments. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Office of the Leader of the House provides best practice guidance on answering parliamentary questions to all Departments, which states that if reference is made to documents in response to a parliamentary question, copies of the documents must be placed in the Library.

Philip Davies: On a number of occasions, I have received answers to parliamentary questions that say that information has been placed in the Library, only to find that it has not been placed there and that it does not arrive until quite a while later. Before we get into naming and shaming Ministers and Departments, will the Deputy Leader of the House take steps to ensure that that poor practice does not happen again?

Tom Brake: I agree that if an answer to a parliamentary question refers to information being deposited in the Library, that should happen in a timely manner. I would be happy to remind Departments of the requirements and to take up any cases on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, should he wish to give me the details. We tried to identify the question to which he was referring. If he provides that information, we will follow it up.

Chris Bryant: Much as I hate agreeing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), he is absolutely right on this occasion. The worst of it is that the Leader of the House is about—I have a sneaking suspicion—to let all Ministers off the hook, because the moment he prorogues early, all the questions lapse and no Minister has to do anything. I urge him not to prorogue until the day before the Queen’s Speech, so that Ministers have plenty of time to get all their answers in order.

Tom Brake: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am certain that all Departments will do everything they can to ensure that questions are responded to before Prorogation.

Mr Speaker: I call Priti Patel. Not here.

Scrutiny of the Government

Mark Harper: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the House in scrutinising the Government.

Andrew Lansley: As a result of the changes that have been introduced in this Parliament, such as the election of Select Committee Chairs, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and more generous approaches to permitting urgent questions and allocating time for debating legislation, the ability of the House to scrutinise the Government has been much enhanced.

Mark Harper: I asked the question because that is my view also. I was very taken by the letter that you read out, Mr Speaker, from the Clerk of the House, for whom I have the greatest respect. He said that the House is
	“a more effective scrutineer of the executive, and more topical, relevant and independent-minded”
	than he has ever known it in his 42 years of service, so we must be doing something right.

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I trust that it will not be interpreted as engaging the Clerk in the debate to say that I hope that Members throughout the House agree that what he said is absolutely true. It is important for such scrutiny to take place. I hope in the debate this afternoon to enhance the ability of this House to demonstrate to the public, whom we serve, that we not only debate the matters that are relevant to them, but use the opportunities that we have to hold the Executive to account.

Helen Goodman: However much the processes and procedures of the House have been improved, the Government seem to be trying to subvert them by having extremely long recesses. My understanding from the Table Office is that Westminster Hall will not sit again until 17 June. If, as we all expect, the Leader of the House is about to announce that we will rise on 14 or 15 May, it will mean that for more than a month we will have no opportunity to scrutinise Departments in detail. Will he at least agree to bring forward the Westminster Hall debates to 10 June?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady slightly anticipates what would more properly be a business question. At this stage, we tend to have Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech at this time of year rather than November, so they come together with the traditional Easter and Whitsun recesses. That creates a change in the structure of the calendar rather than necessarily an overall reduction in time spent in debate.

Initiation of Legislation (Local Authorities)

Andy Sawford: What scope there is for local authorities to initiate legislation in Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Brake: Under the rules of the House, local authorities may initiate legislation by way of private Bills, which may make specific provision for their local authority area only, as opposed to amending the general law of the land. There have been six such private Bills before Parliament this Session.

Andy Sawford: Given the great initiatives of the 19th century to reform towns and cities around the country and recent initiatives such as Liverpool’s push for smoke-free public places and Canterbury’s action on street traders, and as we have a zombie Parliament, in which the coalition can agree no business, will the Leader of the House invite local areas to come forward with initiatives for their communities?

Tom Brake: First, of course we do not have a zombie Parliament: we are about to have a Queen’s Speech that will set out a detailed programme of government. The Government do not have any plans to review the procedure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned for private Bills, but we would be open to considering other ways in which such business could be transacted.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the jam-packed business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 12 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Care Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (day 1).
	Tuesday 13 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Consumer Rights Bill (day 1), followed by motion relating to the Standards Committee report on all-party parliamentary groups, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 14 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Deregulation Bill (day 1), followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 15 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Friday 16 May—The House will not be sitting.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for what looks to be the last business statement before the end of this Session. Will he confirm that the House now looks likely to prorogue more than a week before the recess date that he originally announced?
	The horrific kidnap of nearly 300 schoolgirls by a terrorist group in Nigeria has rightly been condemned by leaders across the international community. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Foreign Secretary so that he can tell us what support the UK Government are offering to help locate and rescue these young women?
	On Tuesday, the Business Secretary told the House that he will not “rule out intervention” on Pfizer’s attempted takeover of AstraZeneca, which may threaten UK jobs in the strategically important pharmaceutical sector, but the Prime Minister seems to be a cheerleader for it. At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, he failed to tell the House whether he would work with the Opposition to deliver a public interest test. That would need only secondary legislation, so perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us now: will the Government work with us to introduce such a test quickly so that the UK can safeguard its strategic interests in this sector, which is so crucial both to our research and development and our science base? Will he arrange for the Business Secretary to come to the House so that he can tell us exactly what the Government’s position now is on this crucial issue?
	Coalition chaos on AstraZeneca is just the tip of the iceberg according to a report published yesterday by the Institute for Government. It warns that the Government are in danger of seizing up altogether as the election approaches. Some of us think that they already have. There are now credible complaints that civil service impartiality is being compromised by the partisan and inappropriate demands for policy advice from warring coalition parties. To provide reassurance and transparency,
	will the Leader of the House tell us whether he supports the Institute for Government’s sensible calls for the publication of civil service engagement rules for this final year so that we can have both clarity and oversight of the Government’s behaviour? Does he also agree with the institute that:
	“The access that the two coalition parties will have to the civil service in the pre-election period strengthens the case for offering more extensive civil service support to the Opposition”?
	The Government’s habit of believing that policy delivery ends with sending out the press release just gets worse. In November 2011, the Department for Work and Pensions said:
	“Over one million people will be claiming Universal Credit by April 2014”.
	But when April 2014 arrived, fewer than 4,000 people were on a pale imitation of the proposed regime.
	In July 2007, the current Leader of the House said in a press release that there would be no top-down reorganisations of the NHS, but four years into this Government, what do we have? We have a disastrous and expensive top-down reorganisation of the NHS. This week, we have learned that the much trumpeted NHS better care fund has been delayed, after a Whitehall review declared that it would not work, would not help balance the budget and would not bring about the promised revolution in patient care. Is not the truth that the better care fund was a knee-jerk reaction to Labour’s policy on the integration of health and social care, and that the Government’s own legislation is standing in the way of proper integration? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Health Secretary so that he can urgently clarify the status of the better care fund?
	There are now just two weeks to go until the local and European elections. The Conservative party has frantically been trying to paint the Leader of the Opposition as a mixture of Karl Marx and Hugo Chávez, the UK Independence party has been hiring eastern Europeans to deliver its anti-immigration leaflets, and the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have resorted to backing a report that calls for the legalisation of cannabis. I suppose mind-altering drugs are the only thing that might persuade people to vote for him. At his campaign launch on Monday, he was reduced to pleading with his activists to shout from the rooftops about Liberal Democrat achievements. I think they might be safer on the roof than they would be on the doorstep.
	What about those Liberal Democrat achievements? The Deputy Prime Minister promised to scrap tuition fees, but he trebled them. He promised he would not raise VAT, but he raised it. He promised fair taxes, but he gave tax breaks to millionaires while everyone else pays more. This week, scientists have discovered a new dinosaur with a very long nose, and they have named it Pinocchio rex. I think maybe they should just have called it Nick.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response. She will be aware that only once business is concluded can we be certain of the precise timing of Prorogation, so as is customary, Prorogation will be announced once all the Government’s business required in this Session has been secured.
	The hon. Lady was right to ask about Nigeria, and she will have heard what the Prime Minister said about that. We are all shocked by what has been happening
	there, including the kidnapping of the girls and the other terrorist attacks. As the hon. Lady will know, the Foreign Secretary has been in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova this week, but I will of course talk to the Foreign Office about how we might take an opportunity to update the House not only on his visit this week but on the steps that he has taken on Nigeria, including the contacts that he has had with the Nigerian Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister’s discussion with the President of Nigeria, which was scheduled to take place yesterday afternoon.
	One point in the Institute for Government’s report is about making progress in this final year. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said in Question Time, we cannot anticipate the Queen’s Speech, but I can assure the House that there will be a full programme of legislative business for it to consider.
	I would remind the House of the sheer scale of the legislative achievement that has been accomplished in this Session. Opposition Members had the opportunity to support much of it, such as legislation on same-sex marriage; on shared parental leave; on the establishment of single-tier pensions; on reforms to speed up adoption; on giving children in care new time limits on their care proceedings, to reduce delays; on introducing special, additional measures for children with special educational needs, including care plans; on establishing the principles of High Speed 2 and the Select Committee on the Bill; on electricity market reform and investment in our energy infrastructure; on investment in the water industry; and on protection for householders seeking insurance against flooding.
	The Opposition did not seem quite so keen on some things, of course, such as the employment allowance, which will give 1.25 million businesses and charities the benefit of £2,000 off their employer’s national insurance bill. There is also banking reform; criminal justice; the reform of antisocial behaviour law; and those who leave prison having served fewer than 12 months will receive supervision to reduce reoffending. I think that in any year, any Government could be proud of the scale of the legislative achievements undertaken.
	You know how loth I am, Mr Speaker, to engage in any kind of partisan activity at the Dispatch Box, so I will not engage in electioneering. I will just say that the parties of the coalition Government can go into the local and European elections not least on the strength of our long-term economic plan working. We are seeing some of the best growth figures, and indeed forecasts for the United Kingdom to be among the strongest growing economies in the developed world. We debate many things about Europe, but we all know that to be a strong country we need a strong economy. That is what this coalition Government are delivering through our long-term economic plan.
	The hon. Lady asked about the Pfizer-AstraZeneca merger, and she will have heard what the Prime Minister said in response to the Leader of the Opposition. She asked for a statement; the Business Secretary was at the Dispatch Box just 48 hours ago to answer questions from the House. I think he did so very clearly. He made clear a number of things, including the point that Pfizer has not as yet made a formal bid, and that from the Government’s point of view there is open-handed neutrality. We have engaged with both companies to establish their positions and what their commitments may be. If there
	are further developments, I know that the Business Secretary will engage the House. I have substantial constituency interests in relation to both Pfizer and AstraZeneca. The shadow Leader of the House will therefore understand that I am not party inside Government to discussions relating directly to Pfizer and AstraZeneca, and I am not able to go beyond what my friends have said at the Dispatch Box.

Charles Walker: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement on forthcoming business. He will know that the Procedure Committee has a report on private Members’ Bills waiting to be reviewed by the House, and I look forward to debating that with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who will represent a sort of Darth Vader of dark forces in that area. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that next Tuesday might be a good time for that titanic struggle and battle to take place?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I do not necessarily endorse his views on my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who, along with other Members, has enabled us to assert with confidence that private Members’ Bills that secure the agreement of the House must jump a high bar, and rightly so. Making legislation should not be easy, although my recollection is that, subject to further debate next week in the House of Lords, five private Members’ Bills may have secured Royal Assent this Session.
	We have had constructive debates with the Procedure Committee, and I would like the House to have the opportunity to debate further reforms to private Members’ Bills. As yet I do not have a time fixed for that, but I will take on board what my hon. Friend has said and consider when we can do that.

Natascha Engel: As there is now no more time available for Back-Bench business before the end of the Session, will the Leader of the House allow me to make an announcement disguised as a question, to let the House know that the Backbench Business Committee has now closed its doors until after the Queen’s Speech when our successor Committee is elected? I thank all hon. Members who have served on the Committee, and all those who have used it and brought such interesting debates before the House. I have enjoyed the representations made.

Andrew Lansley: I completely agree with the hon. Lady and endorse what she says. I am pleased that in this Session we have been able to allocate more time for debates determined by the Backbench Business Committee than the Standing Orders required, just as we provided three more days for Opposition day debates than is required by the Standing Orders. The Clerk’s letter to Mr Speaker made clear the scrutiny that this House is undertaking, and the Backbench Business Committee’s progress in this Session has demonstrated an essential part of that enhanced scrutiny.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend, in the oodles of time available, make sure that there is a Government statement next week on holiday pay? Does he know that there is much concern among employers about the interaction between European Union law and British law? It is causing confusion and
	leading people to believe that holiday pay will have to be based not just on basic salaries, but overtime and additional work? This is a complex issue, but at the moment the Government do not seem to have a clear policy.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If I may, I will ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to reply to him, and if, as he says, there is widespread confusion on this issue, to let the House know what it can do to dispel that confusion.

Diana Johnson: In 2010, there was the highest ever level of satisfaction with the NHS. A report this week by the Care Quality Commission on hospitals in Hull shows deteriorating services and staff shortages. May we please have a debate on the cost to the NHS of the £3 billion spent on reorganisation, on the fact that that has meant deteriorating services, and on Hull not receiving a penny of the £250 million provided for A and E services over the winter?

Andrew Lansley: A number of questions were wrapped into that. The latest British social attitudes survey showed a 61% satisfaction rating with the NHS. That is an increase on the previous year and the third highest figure since 1983. One of the reasons why people are satisfied with the NHS is that the service is not deteriorating. On the contrary, we have kept to our coalition agreement to increase the resources for the NHS in real terms. Those resources are being used more effectively across the NHS, including saving nearly £1.5 billion a year through the reorganisation the hon. Lady describes. That cost about £1.5 billion to implement, but will save £1.5 billion a year—more than £5 billion in the course of this Parliament.

Richard Fuller: The widespread increase in rolling stock spoken about by the Transport Secretary earlier today is welcome news for commuters, but it is creating great anxiety for my constituents who work at the Cauldwell Walk depot and manage the current rolling stock. They know that they will not manage the future rolling stock, but they do not know when that transition will take place. Despite their own best efforts and mine, parliamentary questions and requests to speak with Ministers have been met with a wall of silence because of the franchise renegotiation. This has led them to consider all possible options, including the withdrawal of their labour, something that could lead to strike action and disruption. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on what options I have in Parliament to pursue this matter further?

Andrew Lansley: I can understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this matter and the desire of the staff at the depot to have greater clarity on their future position. I will certainly urge the future franchisee to engage with the affected work force to provide that clarity as soon as possible. He does, I am afraid, say correctly that we cannot divulge at this stage the details of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise bidders’ plans for rolling stock or maintenance. That is
	commercially sensitive information in a live bidding process. We currently expect all depot staff currently employed to transfer to the successor franchisee at the outset. It will then be for that operator to decide how best to manage the maintenance of the fleet. It is not yet possible to give firm assurances on the nature of depot posts. However, as I am sure he would expect, I will ensure that Ministers are happy, once an announcement has been made, to discuss this matter with him, and for other interested Members of Parliament, staff and unions to be able to engage directly with the successful bidder.

Dave Watts: Given today’s poll demonstrating that the public believe that the NHS is deteriorating under this Government’s rule, may we have a debate on why that is, and may we have some indication of how they intend to repair the damage they have done?

Andrew Lansley: What is very clear is that after the election we actually managed to eliminate many of the long waits that patients were experiencing. Approximately 180,000 people had been waiting over a year for treatment and we have reduced that figure down to below 1,000. That is what people across the country are experiencing in the NHS. The NHS, with rising demand, is managing to use its resources more effectively to sustain the quality of services.

Stephen Barclay: Nikki Sams was just 26 when she died of cervical cancer. Her doctor failed to spot the symptoms eight times but escaped any disciplinary action by retiring, despite having been investigated previously. May we have a statement on when the General Medical Council will get the powers it needs to change the Cohen judgment, which restricts accountability, and allow it to appeal lenient sentences, as doctors can appeal sentences they regard as too harsh?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall discuss with my colleagues in the Department of Health. My hon. Friend will recall, not least following the Law Commission report, that there are plans and legislative proposals for the further reform of health professional regulation. I will discuss with colleagues in the Department of Health what progress has been made and whether we will be able better to answer my hon. Friend’s precise questions.

Alison McGovern: I add my voice to the pleas for a statement on the assistance that the UK Government will give to the Nigerian Government to “bring back our girls”. You will know, Mr Speaker, that in northern Nigeria, only 4% of girls get an education. That is both an immediate crisis for the families and a long-term disaster in development terms. Please may we have a statement?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, ask my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office if they will be able to make a statement; at this stage, I cannot determine whether it will be written or oral. The hon. Lady will recall what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday not only about the outrage we feel, but about the fact that we have offered support to the Nigerian Government. As with other countries, we have officials and members
	of the armed services in Nigeria who would be able to help, but it is a matter for the Nigerian Government to request help and support and the character of the help and support that we are able to give. In so far as education is concerned, the Prime Minister said yesterday that we provide support for the education of 800,000 children—600,000 of whom are girls—in Nigeria.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Last week, an article appeared in many national newspapers in which an academic argued that the Hinkley Point deal, which is now going through the European Union to ensure that it is robust, should not be pursued. Hinkley Point is massively important to this country: it will produce a massive amount of electricity and it is needed for the security of our energy supplies. May we please have time to debate this matter, which, along with fracking, must be pushed forward if we are not to see the lights going out in the near future? The attitude taken by such academics is not helpful.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will have to forgive me as I did not read the article to which he refers. From what he says, however, I completely agree with him that the rebuilding of our nuclear fleet is important to the security of energy supply in this country and to meeting our future targets for reducing carbon generation. I know that my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary, who has kept us informed about this project in the past, would be keen to update us about it in future.

Tom Blenkinsop: Yesterday, Monitor announced that it will be investigating the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust regarding its referral times and governance. This comes just after a trust special briefing stating that its financial gap has gone from £5 million to between £30 million and £50 million in 12 months. May we have a debate on why that foundation trust and others have recently found themselves in such massive deficits? When can we expect the £3.8 billion Better care proposals from the Government?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue; I confess that I neglected to answer the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House about the Better care fund. There is no need for a statement because there has been no slippage in the Better care fund. It is to be introduced from April 2015 and it was always anticipated that at this stage Ministers would receive submissions from local authorities together with their clinical commissioning groups on how they propose to use that fund for local plans. In that sense, nothing has changed. As far as the foundation trusts are concerned, it is important to recognise that Monitor is the regulator. If I may, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman’s question to the attention of Monitor’s chief executive and seek a reply about South Tees hospitals.

David Nuttall: May we have a debate on honesty in sentencing? My Bury North constituents will be astonished and dismayed that anyone such as the convicted armed robber known as the “Skullcracker”, who had been given not just one but 13 life sentences, was being prepared for release in an open prison despite having absconded twice before and committed dozens more armed robberies while out at large.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that many Members share my hon. Friend’s view, and rightly so. As he may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has ordered a full review of the case to establish the circumstances of the decision to grant Mr Wheatley temporary release, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on it. However, we know that there is a need for reform of the temporary licensing system, which is why, in March, my right hon. Friend announced plans to scale down access to temporary licences. In future, when prisoners are let out on temporary licence, they will be tagged, more strictly risk-assessed, and tested in the community under strict conditions before being released. That will ensure that we make more effective use of release on temporary licence, and take the steps that are necessary to maintain public safety.

Barry Gardiner: Three years ago, the Government announced that 261 schools would benefit from the priority schools building programme, but so far only 28 have done so. May we have a statement on the Government’s use of “prioritisation”, given that 10.7279% does not really reflect a good priority?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid that I do not recall the precise number of schools that have already benefited from the programme, but I am pretty sure that the last figure that I heard was higher than the one given by the hon. Gentleman. I will check with the Department for Education, and ensure that we are both informed of the latest figure.
	I am sure that, along with other Members on both sides of the House, the hon. Gentleman welcomed the announcement a fortnight ago of a further £2 billion for the priority schools building programme. That money will enable us not only to rebuild schools and build new ones where necessary—which was made possible by the first tranche of funding—but to help schools with rebuilding or refurbishment. Over the next few years, it will make a big difference to our school estate.

Matthew Offord: May I, as a free marketeer, request a debate on the universal service obligation in the postal industry? In my constituency, TNT has been able to come in and cherry-pick some of the more lucrative parts of the postal service, thus posing a threat to the universal service obligation. Recently, when cleaning out a river in Colindale, I found a bundle of letters that someone from TNT had dumped without delivering them. Will a Minister come to the House and make a statement, so that we can ensure that competition in the postal market is fair competition?

Andrew Lansley: Of course there should be fair competition, and it is the responsibility of Ofcom, as the regulator, to ensure that that is the case. Let me add, however, as one who is equally a believer in free markets, that I think my hon. Friend should welcome—and I am sure he does—the fact that, in its private sector capacity which enables it to generate private investment to support its business, Royal Mail will be increasingly able not only to meet its universal service obligations, which are unchanged, but to compete in the marketplace.

Robert Flello: The consultation on the HS2 route is still ongoing, but last week the Prime Minister was talking about a station
	near Crewe—as the Secretary of State for Transport continues to do—although no such station is on the route on which consultation is taking place. The Department is talking up the viability of such a station at the expense of the general taxpayer, whereas the Stoke proposals are being worked up at the expense of Stoke ratepayers. May we have a debate, in Government time, on the subversion of consultations and the failure of Departments to follow proper procedures?

Andrew Lansley: I understand that the phase 2 consultation is proceeding, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced that the results will be reported to the House later this year. I am sure that all the submissions are being properly taken into account in the consultation.

Mary Macleod: In this great city of London, which contains more than 10 million people, transport infrastructure and investment are incredibly important. The Mayor has agreed to allow Piccadilly line trains to stop at Turnham Green, in Chiswick, throughout the day. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make a statement to the House about investment in the upgrade of the line, when that upgrade might take place, and whether it can happen earlier than planned so that my residents can benefit from a better service on their way to work?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an important issue for Chiswick residents and businesses. She has been campaigning hard on it, with some success, as I understand that she has received confirmation from the Mayor of London, following consultation, that Piccadilly line trains will stop at Turnham Green when the line upgrade has taken place. This Government have provided £10 billion to Transport for London in this Parliament, supporting the biggest upgrade in the London underground for 60 years. Passengers using Turnham Green station will see real benefits, including a 24-hour service through the night on Fridays and Saturdays from later this month, and improvements to the District line in 2016 and 2018. As she asked, once the Piccadilly line has been upgraded, London Underground plans to stop trains at Turnham Green all day.

Grahame Morris: May I add my weight to the representations made by the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Friends asking for an early statement from the Health Secretary about the future of the better care fund? I participated in a visit to look at a pilot in Greenwich in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and there is another pilot in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). It is important that we know about the futures of those pilots and the entire fund.

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman planned his question but did not listen to the answer I just gave. There is no change in the planning for the better care fund. In response to what he and the shadow Leader of the House said, I should point out that this Government have taken the necessary steps to further integrate health and social care delivery. We made significant
	resources available to local authorities, in each of the first two years of this Parliament, to support social care-health service interaction. The health and wellbeing boards are creating a powerful structural mechanism to enable that to happen, and the better care fund will put the resources behind that capacity to deliver integrated care.

Henry Smith: On state visits and certain other occasions—although, interestingly, not during the recent Irish state visit—flags of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and the overseas territories are flown from Parliament square and then taken down. May we have a statement from the Culture Secretary on the possibility of flags of the constituent countries of the UK and the overseas territories flying full-term from Parliament square?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is of course a noted vexillologist, a fact that I thought I should draw to the attention of the House.

Andrew Lansley: rose—

Kevin Brennan: He’s flagged that up.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, and my hon. Friend has a considerable interest in heraldry as well.
	Currently the flags of the Commonwealth are flown in Parliament square for Commonwealth day. Flags also fly on the square for Europe day and UN day, and the flags of the overseas territories and the Commonwealth dependencies fly for Trooping the Colour and London state visits. Any unscheduled flag-flying outside of designated days and ceremonial occasions in Parliament square would require the approval of both Buckingham palace and the Earl Marshal. Parliament square is also managed by the Greater London authority, which schedules events throughout the year, so there might be a loss of revenue if flags are flown throughout the year and access to the square is restricted. To that extent, I am afraid there is not a simple yes-no answer, but my hon. Friend asked an interesting question to which there is, I hope, an interesting answer.

Kevin Brennan: It is clear from the Leader of the House’s statement that there are really only two reasons why the Government are staggering on. One is that they passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the other is that not every Liberal Democrat has yet been given a knighthood, a damehood or a turn as a Government Minister. As it is so hard to kill zombies off, why does the Leader of the House not announce the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act so that we can put an end to this long night of the living dead?

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman may have read the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report of this week which, among other things, said the planning and certainty given by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has been very useful. When he hears the Queen’s Speech and sees the future legislative programme, he will see that this Government are using that certainty of being able to deliver a fourth Session programme very effectively.

John Glen: Following reform of the common agricultural policy, farmers in my constituency are keen to know about, and have clarification on, the new greening rules. Will the Leader of the House make a statement so that farmers know what to expect and how to plan for the coming year?

Andrew Lansley: I will, if I may, talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and see what they can say to provide the certainty that my hon. Friend and his farmers would appreciate.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House is obviously grappling with how to fill up the hours of the day and the days of the week. Instead of ending the Session next week, why does he not spend a week allowing as many private Members’ Bills and ten-minute rule Bills as possible to be debated? In that way, Parliament could become a real debating Chamber, enabling us to debate the issues that affect ordinary Members of this House rather than being sent into yet another recess because the Government have run out of business.

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid that there is some kind of fantasy going on. Next week, I have announced three days of Government business—Report stages of three Bills. I did not notice the Labour party recognising that by the end of next week, as a consequence of commencing with more than one day on Report on three carry-over Bills, we will have had 11 Bills this Session that will have had more than one day for consideration on Report. There were only 10 Bills that had more than one day’s consideration on Report in the whole of the previous Parliament. I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that this Government are creating much better opportunities for legislative scrutiny.

Andrew Bridgen: A few weeks ago, a taxi driver in my constituency was subject to a violent alcohol-fuelled attack while working a night shift. Bearing in mind that last year saw a 5.8% increase in assaults on NHS workers, many of which occurred in night-shift time, can we have a debate about what further protections the Government can put in place to protect night workers so that they have a safe environment in which to carry out their business and be free from the threat of assault?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know from my former interest in the health service that it is a matter of considerable concern to health workers that they are kept safe. Assaults on any of our public sector or emergency service workers, on whom we depend, should be treated very seriously. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but it strikes me as a subject that would merit one. Perhaps it would be helpful if my hon. Friend secured an Adjournment debate to discuss those issues.

Alison Seabeck: We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) concerns about the way in which Government consultations are being carried out. Will the Leader of the House accept that the public place a great deal of value on the quality of Government consultations, irrespective of the nature
	and type of Government, and on their open-mindedness, and so on. Does he therefore share my concerns that the consultation on the future of the Land Registry and 600 jobs in Plymouth appears, from board minutes, to have been a total sham? Will he ask the Business Secretary to come to this House and make a statement?

Andrew Lansley: I will ask the Business Secretary to respond to the hon. Lady. I do not share her concerns about that matter. It is important to recognise that the Land Registry continues to make greater efficiencies and progress. She will have seen the written ministerial statement made today about the targets that are being set for the Land Registry’s future activities. That is important because of the service that it provides to people in this country.

Caroline Dinenage: Despite National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggesting that women up to the age of 42 should be allowed up to three rounds of in vitro fertilisation treatment, women in my local area are offered only one round of IVF treatment up to the age of 35 by the local clinical commissioning group. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on what is effectively a postcode lottery for fertility treatment in the UK?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that these are issues with which parts of the NHS have wrestled for a very long time. My view, and I think the view of the Government, is that clinical commissioning groups, in their responsibility for commissioning, should take full account of the NICE clinical guidelines. NICE has published fertility guidelines, which are not mandatory but are there for a reason. It should be recognised that the recommendation of three full cycles of IVF and the age limit is evidence based. Clinical commissioning groups should look to the evidence. If they do otherwise, large amounts of money will have been spent on investigations of infertility, but the opportunity to maximise the chances of conception in the IVF that follows will be undermined. It is important to use the resources that are used in the investigation to support proper treatment.

Nicholas Dakin: My constituent, Pete Woodcock, is unable to claim jobseeker’s allowance because of treatment for his advanced cancer, yet Atos says that his application for the personal independence payment will not be processed for at least five months. He writes that to make sure that his family can manage, he will be cancelling his treatment and will sign back on jobseeker’s this week. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to explain why PIP is performing so badly and to say what he is going to do about it?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the development of the personal independence payment system is proceeding in stages and it is important that we get it right. It is geared to the needs of people with disabilities far more than the previous system, under which they were often not subject to assessment for years on end. I recall that the figures for those with life-limiting illnesses showed that a high proportion of those assessments had been undertaken. However, I will look at the figures and ensure that the Department for
	Work and Pensions responds to him. I am sure that we would be grateful to have the details of any particular case so that we can respond to it.

Mark Harper: I listened intently to the Leader of the House’s impressive list of legislative achievements, and, following yesterday’s debate, I look forward to the Immigration Bill joining that list, which should really improve our immigration system. However, now that we have listened to the shadow Leader of the House for a number of weeks, will the Leader of the House remind her and the House that this House’s job is not just to be a legislation factory? It is important that we take time to debate important issues, have question sessions and hold Ministers to account as well as passing legislation.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The legislative achievement in the course of this Session has been impressive and the Immigration Bill and the Care Bill, which will, I hope, pass its final stages next week, will add substantially to that list of achievements. He is quite right, too, that our work goes beyond that. It has been depressing week on week to hear the shadow Leader of the House and other Opposition Members interpret debates nominated by the Backbench Business Committee and even their own Opposition day debates as of no consequence. Such debates are the essence of what we do in this place and the fact that in this Session we have been able to give the Opposition and the Backbench Business Committee more days than we were required to while securing Royal Assent for some 20 Bills by the end of the Session is a good use of parliamentary time.

Madeleine Moon: LUTS, the expert group in lower urinary tract symptoms, held awards this week highlighting best practice in incontinence management and treatment. May we have a debate on incontinence? It is a secret that affects one in five women and 40% of men, and there are dignified ways of managing and treating the affliction. May we discuss it so that people feel greater confidence in going to their GPs and seeking the help that is urgently needed?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Lady and other Members were to seek such a debate, I think that would be a very good thing. The problem affects a large number of people and can be very distressing if it is not well managed. It can be well managed, however, and, from the male point of view, I remember visiting Southampton hospital and seeing some of the nurse-led research projects that went on there. It is doing work to change, update and modernise the technology to support men with incontinence that could and should have been done many years ago, because many of the technologies used for male incontinence are decades old.

Michael Ellis: Will the Leader of the House look into the fact that following the impressive renovation of the encaustic tiles in St Stephen’s Lobby, the spot that has traditionally marked the assassination of one of my predecessors, the Member for Northampton, Spencer Perceval, who was Prime Minister in 1812, has been removed? That is an important
	part of the history of Northampton and of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and perhaps find a replacement?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am sure that I have had the same experience as many other Members of reaching that part in my tour for constituents visiting the Palace and pointing out the tiles that are not in the proper formation. It was a way of enabling us to recall that event at that spot, but I will, if I may, discuss further with the House authorities what their thinking is in this regard and whether we can commemorate that unique event, unhappy as it was.

Chris Bryant: If Parliament prorogues early, which seems to be in the mind of the Leader of the House, it will be impossible for this House to be summoned, even if the Prime Minister wants it, even if the Leader of the House wants it, even if 649 Members of this House write to the Speaker and demand it, even if the Clerk of the House wants it. We will not be able to sit for three weeks, and during that time, first, there will be elections in Ukraine, which could well be an important flashpoint for NATO troops, let alone anybody else; and, secondly, the Prime Minister will have to decide who will be the British Commissioner, and how Britain will vote on replacements for Mr Van Rompuy and for the President of the European Commission. Would it not be better if we did not prorogue until the day before the Queen’s Speech, so that it was available for us to summon the House if necessary, to hold the Government to account?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman bases his proposition on the idea that we will prorogue early, and we have no intention of proroguing unless and until all the business that requires to be transacted in this Session has been completed.

Martin Vickers: I recently held a public meeting in my constituency so that the Environment Agency could update residents and businesses on the floods that followed the tidal surge in December. The agency is now making final plans to be submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be a statement at that point?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised the subject with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House in the recent pre-recess Adjournment debate. DEFRA Ministers will be continuing to develop further investment in flood defences, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will update the House both on that and on the lessons learned exercises as soon as he can.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Leader of the House issue a statement explaining why a Government official who used to work for an investment bank involved in the Pfizer-AstraZeneca deal is leading the takeover negotiations, and whether that lack of independence is in the public’s interest?

Andrew Lansley: I do not know of any civil servant who is in any sense compromised in relation to conflicts of interest. I do not think one can reasonably say that any
	relationship at any point in one’s past professional life necessarily constitutes a conflict years and years later. Civil servants are committed impartially to working on behalf of the Government. They have no conflicts of interest, or if they had any conflict of interest it would have to be declared.

Philip Davies: Two years ago, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) Bill, to ensure the compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat at the point of sale. It was defeated by three votes—voted down largely by the politically correct brigade on the Labour Benches. As usual, I was ahead of my time, because the Leader of the House will appreciate that there is now widespread concern about the use among retailers of halal and kosher meat that is not labelled as such. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House to explain what the Government are doing to ensure that consumers can make an informed choice when they are making their purchases?

Andrew Lansley: I do recall my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill and indeed he correctly anticipated what is clearly a continuing and emerging debate. I will, if I may, talk to our ministerial colleagues at DEFRA, but if he is able to—I am not sure quite how closely it will link—he may find an opportunity, on the first day of Report of the Consumer Rights Bill, to draw attention to these issues, because that Bill is very much about something that I am sure we all believe in, which is giving consumers not only rights, but the information on which they can base their purchasing decisions.

Angela Smith: There is a sense of urgency about the need to strengthen the public interest test in the context of a further likely bid from Pfizer for AstraZeneca, and the country will expect the Government and the Opposition to work together on that issue. Will the Leader of the House commit to delaying Prorogation, so that we can make the time available to debate the actions required to deal with that situation and to legislate if necessary?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will have heard my reply to the shadow Leader of the House. There is no formal bid from Pfizer for AstraZeneca. When the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talks about the public interest test, she is no doubt referring to the wider public interest test which the previous Government removed from legislation when they introduced the Enterprise Act 2002. I remember it well because I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill at the time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was very clear on Tuesday about not only his neutrality in relation to the two parties involved in this, but his open-mindedness about what steps the Government might take in relation to it.

Andrew Jones: Roadworks are badly affecting parts of my constituency and have been doing so for month after month, significantly affecting trade in nearby shops and businesses. May we have a debate on how local authorities can work with
	utility companies and developers to ensure that residents and businesses are consulted and fully informed about roadworks in advance?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point and he is right, as we try in many contexts to support our high streets and the traders and small businesses on them. One of the ways we can do that, which the Government have done, is to require greater notice of roadworks and for utility companies to work together in a more co-ordinated fashion, so that roads are not constantly dug up for one purpose, with someone else then coming along and digging them up for another. Giving notice and co-ordinating work is important, but I will ask my hon. Friends from the Department for Communities and Local Government to update him on anything else we are doing in this context to support high streets.

Helen Goodman: I was disappointed that the Leader of the House said nothing about the future programme for Westminster Hall in his statement, but he has had time to think about my question. Will he bring forward the Westminster Hall debates to 10 June? He has been eloquent about the need for this House to hold the Government to account. Here is an opportunity to show that he is right behind that.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will understand that the provisions for sittings in Westminster Hall are determined by Standing Orders. It is not in my gift to change Standing Orders; it is a matter for the House, but as she rightly asks the question, I will look at what provisions in Standing Orders permit us to bring debates forward in Westminster Hall more speedily after the opening of a new Session.

Jeremy Lefroy: Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions the subject was raised of the deeply worrying lack of a pipeline of new antibiotics, owing to market failure. May we have a debate on how the UK, perhaps through the Department of Health and the Department for International Development, can take the lead in a global initiative to support the development of new antibiotics, similar to that which has been so successful in producing new malaria drugs?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister rightly stressed the importance of this, which he has discussed with the chief medical officer directly. The chief medical officer made an important report on the subject, in addition to her annual report. Last year we published the UK’s five-year anti-microbial resistance plan. That is world-leading, but it would be better if we were able to work with others. The World Health Organisation’s report gives us the basis on which to work with others at stimulating the necessary research to develop new antibiotics. If we can make sure that we use antibiotics more sensibly in the meantime, that will prolong far into the future the effective use of the existing supply of antibiotics, the stocks available and the kinds of antibiotics available at present.

Ian Lucas: Last Thursday in a debate on freedom of conscience and religion, a number of Members, including me, raised the issue of
	the abduction of the schoolgirls in northern Nigeria. We have had no opportunity to discuss this with a Minister, and the Foreign Secretary is not the only Minister in the Foreign Office. Bearing in mind that Prorogation approaches, may we please have a statement in the House on this issue so that we can ask questions of the Government and obtain some answers?

Andrew Lansley: I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from my previous answer that I am not at all unsympathetic, but I want to make sure that we look carefully with my colleagues to see when and how we can give the House the best opportunity to consider these issues.

Julian Sturdy: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), may I add my voice to the calls for a debate on the findings of the World Health Organisation’s report on the global issue of antibiotic resistance? It concluded that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone in any country.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right, and I know of his interest in the matter. This relates to our use of antibiotics not only in human health, but in animal health and how they interact. It is very important to get both right. He will understand from my previous answer that I hope we will take an international lead in trying to achieve a greater effect against anti-microbial resistance in future.

Andy Sawford: The Leader of the House has been clear that the better care fund will continue, so will he investigate why Whitehall sources are briefing the media that the fund is now at risk? What is the status of the Cabinet Office report that has been extensively quoted in the press? Will he place a copy of the report in the Library and be clear that it is not a statement of Government policy, because it is very worrying for councils across the country?

Andrew Lansley: I think that I stated the position very clearly, and it is certainly not my intention to start speculating on who is talking to whom and whether or not they are talking to the press. That is not the responsibility of Ministers, and neither is talking about purported or actual leaks to the press.

Paul Uppal: My constituent Bill Baugh recently spoke to me about his involvement in No. 7 Squadron, which was formed at Farnborough airfield on 1 May 1914 and last week celebrated its centenary. As we approach the centenary of the first world war, may we have a debate on how we can share our constituents’ memories and stories about their involvement in both world wars, paying tribute to their service and sacrifice?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate, as I have said in previous business questions, that I hope Members will have a further opportunity to share their constituents’ views on commemorating the great war before the House rises for the summer recess. Of course, there will be an opportunity in the coming years, not least from my constituency’s point of view, to commemorate the establishment of the Royal Flying Corps and its translation into the RAF at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford.

Mr Speaker: Last, but never forgotten, Mr Philip Hollobone.

Philip Hollobone: I support 100% the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). My constituents will be horrified to read reports in today’s newspapers that major high street supermarkets are selling halal and kosher meat without it being labelled as such. Although I recognise that certain faith groups require halal or kosher meat, surely it is perfectly reasonable to expect to know what we are buying. If the Consumer Rights Bill is the right vehicle to address the problem, can we look forward to a Government amendment to ensure that if the meat we buy is halal or kosher, it is labelled as such?

Andrew Lansley: The point my hon. Friend makes is not unreasonable, in relation to the desirability of consumers knowing what they are buying, and it is the responsibility of producers and retailers to make that happen. I am not sure whether it would be in scope to debate that next Tuesday, and I am afraid that I cannot give him any comfort that the Government plan to table such an amendment. I hope that it will generally be the case that where consumers have an expectation, it should be met by producers and retailers; it should not have to be the subject of Government legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friends recognise that legislation is not the answer to all problems.

Point of Order

Henry Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) raised the issue of the possible takeover of the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca by Pfizer. It has since been reported that the Labour party has received significant donations from AstraZeneca. I seek your judgment on whether that should have been reported.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that such donations would not have been personal to any individual right hon. or hon. Member, and therefore the issue of declaration does not arise in this context. I hope that is helpful to him, and indeed to the House.

Standards

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That this House:
	(1) approves the Eleventh Report from the Committee on Standards, HC 1225;
	(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 29; and
	(3) notes that Patrick Mercer has been disqualified as a Member of this House.
	The conclusions of the Standards Committee in this case make for grim reading. It found that Patrick Mercer deliberately evaded the rules about the registration and declaration of interests, that he inflicted
	“significant reputational damage on the House and its Members”
	and that by engaging in paid advocacy he brought the House into disrepute.
	I deeply regret that one of our number should have failed so badly to meet the standards that we and the public rightly expect. In the event, the six-month suspension recommended by the Committee does not have to be enforced as Mr Mercer decided to vacate his seat in advance of publication of the Committee’s report. None the less, it is important that the House has the opportunity to endorse the Committee’s report, to note Mr Mercer’s resignation, in effect, and to thank the commissioner and the Standards Committee for their work in dealing with this case.
	I will leave it to the Chair of the Committee to set out the rationale for the findings in its report, but I want to make one point relating to the use of the sanctions available to the House. The Committee draws attention in paragraph 28 to the further consideration it will give as to how best to balance the need to impose penalties of the right severity for breaches of the code of conduct with the position of the Member’s constituents, who elect them and, by extension, might expect to dismiss them. It goes on to say in paragraph 29 that in reaching a judgment in this case, it was
	“mindful of the precedent in the Lords”
	where the equivalent Committee had recommended suspension of between four and six months in similar cases.
	I am not convinced that the analogy with the Lords works in this context. The tariff system is calibrated differently in that House, largely because it does not have the power to expel peers. Any suspension does not have the same impact because peers do not have constituents who might suffer as a result of a lengthy suspension. Although I do not dismiss the value of precedent, I think we can accept that the two Houses might operate entirely independently from each other on matters of conduct.
	In this House, there may be circumstances in which it is desirable to marry the interests of the electorate with the ethical standards of this House through the use of a recall mechanism. We might thus retain the responsibility of the House to police adherence to its own code of conduct but leave the ultimate decision on the sanction, when it is warranted, with the electorate. The Government have given a commitment to pursuing a recall Bill, which I hope will usefully add to the menu of powers already available to them.
	On the Mercer case, Members will be aware that his offences related in part to the establishment of an all-party parliamentary group in a way that breached the rules: it was done in return for financial reward. There have been long-standing concerns about the potential for abuse of what are generally valuable additions to our parliamentary work. Following a report by the Speaker’s working group in 2012, the Standards Committee embarked on an inquiry into these groups, which was still under way when the case of Patrick Mercer was referred to the commissioner. The Committee reported to the House on all-party parliamentary groups in November 2013. The Committee’s report made many sensible recommendations designed to improve the transparency, accountability and distinctiveness of all-party parliamentary groups. The whole House can be grateful for this valuable work by the Standards Committee. As I have just announced, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider the Committee’s report and to approve the changes it recommended next Tuesday. I hope that these changes will make it even less likely that we will ever have to consider a report and a motion of the sort the House is being asked to consider today.
	In recent weeks, lay members of the Standards Committee have emphasised that more should be done in this House to ensure that Members know and fully understand the requirements of the code and make the principles of public life integral to our thinking and actions. I agree with them and I look forward to working with the Committee to promote that.
	It has been the practice of this House to endorse the findings of the Committee on Standards and I invite hon. Members to do so today.

Angela Eagle: Let me add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) and to the other members of the Standards Committee for this detailed report and for their firm position on an appalling breach of clear and long-standing parliamentary rules.
	I support the motion before us, which says that the House
	“approves the Eleventh Report from the Committee on Standard…endorses the recommendation in paragraph 29; and notes that Patrick Mercer has been disqualified as a Member of this House.”
	Of course, it is now also the case that the former Member has resigned his seat and there will be a by-election in Newark on 5 June. The Committee’s report notes that it is
	“not aware of a case relating to a sitting MP which has involved such a sustained and pervasive breach of the House’s rules on registration, declaration and paid advocacy”
	and concludes that the second-longest suspension since 1947 was the correct sanction for such a grievous breach. It is right to have taken this strong position.
	The details of the case are shocking. Patrick Mercer failed to register his commercial agreement; failed to declare an interest when he tabled a series of parliamentary questions and an early-day motion; failed, more likely than not, to declare an interest to the all-party parliamentary group that he had established, as it turned out, for his
	own financial gain; and, most seriously, used his position as a Member of the House to further his own personal financial interests. The commissioner is right to say that Patrick Mercer inflicted
	“significant reputational damage on the House and its Members.”
	In the light of these unambiguous findings, the Committee was right to recommend the sanctions it did. I also believe that the former Member for Newark was right to take the action he took last week when he resigned his seat forthwith.

Kevin Barron: Let me first say to the Leader of the House that we did point out the issues about Members of the House of Lords not having constituents and that a suspension from this House meant a suspension of pensions and salaries as well. The reason we used the analogy in this case is that a Member of the other place was caught by the same sting, for want of a better expression, and we therefore thought it right and proper that we ought to look at it.
	I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out why the Committee on Standards considered that Mr Mercer’s actions merited, as we have heard, the longest suspension since 1947, with only one exception, which, as Members will know, ended up in the criminal courts with a conviction.
	The House is a place for policy debate, which happens formally in the Chamber and informally outside it. Members do their best to explore different points of view and to establish the underlying facts, and almost every Member works closely with external groups to do so. That is entirely legitimate. The Leader of the House mentioned the Committee’s report on all-party groups. He will see in that report, which we are pleased to be debating next week, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), stated very clearly in her evidence for our report on APPGs that lobbying is part of the parliamentary process. Members talk to a lot of people, they listen to a lot of people, and then they make up their minds. The rules allow MPs to have external interests, but they do not permit paid advocacy. It is not acceptable to receive money in return for acting in Parliament or to use your position as an MP to get advantage, either for yourself or another person. That has been against the rules for centuries. Members who do this undermine our democracy. As this case shows, it is not possible to evade the rules simply by paying lip service to them; Members’ actions do matter.
	I remind the House that this case is not, like many cases that have grabbed the headlines for many years now, a legacy case from the expenses scandal of 2004 to 2009. It is not a legacy—it happened during the lifetime of this Parliament. That puts some of our feelings into perspective. I hope that Members will read and take notice of what we have said.

Kevin Brennan: On legacy cases, was my right hon. Friend surprised to see the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority quoted recently on the front page of a Sunday newspaper criticising the process, despite the existence of a memorandum of understanding on these matters between this House and IPSA?

Kevin Barron: Yes. That relates to the preceding case the Standards Committee dealt with, which has not been debated in this House. I was very surprised indeed, because we have had a memorandum of understanding with IPSA since 2010. If it is felt that this House should take action against a Member—only this House can do that—the case will initially go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and then to our Committee, which will produce a report and make recommendations. IPSA has never approached us on such an issue in any of the past four years. If any UK organisation knows about Members’ expenses post-2009-10, it is IPSA, so I was not particularly happy about that.

Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the all-party groups, so many of which have secretariats from outside this place, are the next big scandal waiting to happen, and that the only way to clean up the situation is for Members themselves to take responsibility for the groups by funding them and, if they care about the issues so much, using their own resources to make sure the process is clean? The Mercer case could be the first of many, if we are not careful.

Kevin Barron: The Standards Committee did not know that this would come up when we started looking at all-party groups. The right and proper time to discuss those matters will be during next Tuesday’s debate.
	The Committee on Standards has been critical of media stings in the past, but the case under discussion was not one in which a Member was misrepresented or had made a single error. It was a sustained course of conduct, not an ill-advised response to a single “fishing” incident.
	There has been some confusion over the respective roles of the Committee and the commissioner. The commissioner is a finder of fact. She investigates and presents her findings to the Committee, and sometimes those findings include advice on the interpretation of the rules. The Committee entirely agreed with the commissioner’s conclusion that Mr Mercer’s actions had inflicted significant reputational damage on the House and its Members. The commissioner does not have a role in recommending a penalty. It is for the Committee to decide on the recommended penalty, and MPs and lay members play a full part in that discussion.
	In this case, the Committee took into account the gravity of the offence and the penalties given in similar cases in the past. In fact, there are very few similar cases, and in most of them the Members concerned were no longer in Parliament by the time the Committee’s investigations were over. There is very little we can do about ex-Members.
	As our minutes show, the Committee seriously considered an even heavier penalty than the one on which we eventually agreed. It is disappointing when colleagues say that the Committee overturned the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards and suggest that there are fundamental disagreements between the Committee and the commissioner, because that is not the case. Clearly, no system is beyond improvement. Indeed, the Committee will itself hold an inquiry into how the House’s disciplinary process could be improved, and the commissioner will contribute to that process as fully as possible. However, public confidence is not
	helped when Members of Parliament attack the integrity of the system rather than try to understand the Committee’s work, or when they claim that the Committee has overturned the commissioner’s findings, without appreciating the complexities of individual cases.
	I do not want to go into this in great detail, but on 8 April my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who sadly is not in his place, asked an urgent question and said that the Committee’s proceedings should be open
	“so that people can see on what basis the Committee overturns the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards”. —[Official Report, 8 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 124.]
	There are three pages in that report that clearly explain our decision in relation to that of the commissioner. I advise Members of the House to read our Committee’s proceedings before dashing to the media to grab a few headlines.
	I would have more sympathy with Members’ calls for reform to increase public trust if the proposals of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, made in December 2012, to update the code of conduct and the guide to the rules had been debated in the House. We are still waiting for that to happen.

Bernard Jenkin: I am probably interrupting the Chair of the Standards Committee to make a different point, but on public confidence, why did Mr Mercer hear about the contents of his report before it was published from journalists briefed by people who were party to the report? Is that not a breach of privilege that the right hon. Gentleman should take very seriously?

Kevin Barron: We are undertaking a form of inquiry into what happened and this is all I can say at the moment, but it looks as though what was in the media came out before the decision had actually been taken. We may make a further report to the House at some stage if we feel that it is necessary. However, I have no concerns about that. The integrity of the Committee stands good. We do not take decisions on the basis of party politics, but on the basis of the commissioner’s memorandum, the precedents of actions we have taken in the past and what is presented to us. What happened was unhelpful, but it may have been based on pure speculation about this case. As has been said, there are other cases, one of which—in the other place—is directly related to this media sting.
	Finally, if any Member has issues about a report, its coverage in the media or anything else, they can talk to me or any Committee member. We hold no party political proceedings on such matters. We are trying to get this place beyond what came to light in 2009, and it would be most helpful if all Members kept that in mind when talking about Standards Committee reports. I hope that the House will accept this report.

Christopher Chope: I pay tribute to the Chair of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron). He has a heavy responsibility and burden in chairing the Committee, which he does with tremendous interest
	and dedication. He and others of us who serve on the Committee have to undertake that unnecessary but unpleasant responsibility.
	In this case, it is awful that one of our colleagues fell so far below the standards that we hold dear. All I can say is that at least it is good that he made a fulsome apology and immediately resigned. I pay tribute to the Government for moving the writ for the by-election immediately, because that ensures that the constituents of Newark will be deprived of their Member of Parliament for the minimum possible length of time.
	It is very good that the Committee now has the benefit of lay members—that has been misinterpreted in the press—because they have equal responsibility and participate in debates in Committee. If we counted the amount of time that each Committee member speaks, I suspect we would find that the lay members collectively talk for as much time as all the others put together. That is no criticism of the lay members; I am putting on the record the fact that they participate to the full in the Committee’s work. It has been suggested—because, for technical reasons, they do not have a vote on the final report—that they are somehow second-class members of the Committee, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is really desirable to have their reflections.

David Nuttall: The lay members may not have a vote, but am I right to suggest that they can issue a minority report if they do not concur with the majority decision?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. That is an important point that should be emphasised. The lay members have not chosen to write a minority report on any of the decisions of the Standards Committee in which they have been involved since the Committee was set up and they became members of it.
	The lay members and the other members of the Committee are considering the issue of sanctions, partly because if there is a long period of suspension, it is as much a punishment of the constituents as of the Member of Parliament. If the Member had not resigned in this case, the long period of suspension could have been regarded as counter-productive. We will consider those issues.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in his opening remarks that there is an interaction between this matter and the Government’s commitment to introduce a Bill on recall. I urge my right hon. Friend—indeed, I plead with him—not to bring forward such a Bill unless there is consensus in the House and it has the support of members of the Standards Committee. The draft Bill was heavily criticised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and members of the Standards Committee.
	Bearing in mind that we are reaching the end of this Parliament, I think that it would be better, if we are going to deal with recall, to do so properly, rather than as a knee-jerk reaction. We must always be nervous about Members of this House intervening in the decisions of the electorate. There is a genuine question over whether the Standards Committee, with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, ought to start making
	recommendations on recall. Is that really what we want? I am not sure that it is. If we are to have recall, we need to work out in advance exactly how it will be triggered.
	I hope, therefore, that the Government will come forward with a further draft Bill or provide substantial pre-legislative scrutiny, because if we are to have a recall Bill, we must ensure that it serves the best interests of the public and the House, rather than being seen as a political gesture to appease people who are concerned, quite rightly, about the standards of conduct in public life.

Bernard Jenkin: I should make it clear that Patrick Mercer is my friend and that I admire many of the things that he has achieved in his professional life. He was the first to admit that he had behaved badly in this matter. I condemn his behaviour and wholly endorse the report that has been produced by Parliament, painful as it is.
	I raised the possible leaking of the contents of the report because it undermines the authority of the Standards Committee. I do not share the confidence of the Committee’s Chairman that it was just speculation, because there was too much certainty in what Mr Mercer was told. Although the Committee might not have concluded its proceedings, there may well have been drafts that informed the speculation, as the Chairman referred to it.
	I do not envy the Chair and members of the Standards Committee. They have a very difficult task, but they have produced a good report and one that Mr Mercer accepts. Indeed, he said how ashamed he was of his own behaviour. That is testimony to the honour of the man.
	We need to learn from this experience and see how we can improve our procedures to maintain their respect, impartiality and integrity. It does Parliament no good if the media feel that they can hunt down the contents of a report before it has been published—it undermines Parliament and it undermines the integrity of the proceedings of the Committee.
	I have nothing further to say, except that I very much welcome the fact that there will be a new Member of Parliament in the constituency, as there should be. Mr Mercer took the right decision and the courageous one in doing what he did.

Robert Buckland: In addressing the House briefly as a member of the Standards Committee, I add my thanks to the Chairman for the hard work that he, with the clerking team, undertakes week in, week out. It is not the most pleasant task to have to adjudicate on fellow Members, but this was an egregious breach, which had to be dealt with by a serious sanction. I echo and will not repeat the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope).
	Let me deal briefly with the status of the lay members, which was raised during the debate. Having joined the Committee at the same time as the lay members, my experience is that they add a refreshing and new perspective to its work and bring us back to the point of view of a reasonable, objective member of the public when assessing
	the impact of our work and the role that we undertake. That is an invaluable service, and I pay tribute to them for their work thus far.
	I am looking forward to the review that will follow as a result of the lay members’ helpful paper, which was published some weeks ago. It is important that we look at other jurisdictions and other Parliaments to see how they do it. I do not pretend that we have all the answers in this House, but it may well be that international comparisons, however interesting, do not quite match the particular context in which our Committee works.
	The question of voting rights for lay members is not straightforward. Many members of the Committee, including me, believe that it would be desirable for lay members to have voting rights, but we are mindful of the conclusions of the helpful report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that was published last year. It rightly pointed out that there are potential implications for privilege in conferring voting rights on non-Members of the House. Putting it simply, any attempt to redefine article 9 is laden with perils. It is certainly not my wish for article 9 to be in any way undermined or traduced by rules or legislation, however well intentioned.
	The only way forward for the Committee to allow voting rights for lay members is for legislation to be considered specifically for our Committee, but I confess that I am having difficulty in thinking of ways in which it could be drafted that do not undermine the general provisions of article 9. For example, if we as a Committee have a particular legislative regime that allows article 9 to apply to lay members, does that imply that other Committees are not covered by privilege? All sorts of questions need to be considered carefully before we
	proceed down that road. That is not an attempt by me or other members of the Committee to try to stall on voting rights, but a genuine wish to preserve the ancient rights that this House and these proceedings enjoy under article 9.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House:
	(1) approves the Eleventh Report from the Committee on Standards, HC 1225;
	(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 29; and
	(3) notes that Patrick Mercer has been disqualified as a Member of this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(3)),
	That at this day’s sitting the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to Petitions, Parliamentary privilege and Calling of amendments at the end of debate (amendment of Standing Orders), and the Motion in the name of Mr Charles Walker relating to Programming not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions, and shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Brooks Newmark relating to the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Lansley.)
	Question agreed to.

House of Commons Business

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the impact of the Wright reforms, HC 82, and the Government Response, HC 910; Seventh Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2010-12, Debates on Government e-Petitions, HC 1706, and the Government reply; Fourth Special Report of 2010-12, HC 1902; Sixth Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2012-13, Debates on Government e-Petitions in Westminster Hall, HC 1094, and the Government reply, which is published on the Committee’s website.]

Mr Speaker: I should inform the House that we will debate motions 3 to 6 together and that I have selected amendment (a) to motion 3 in the name of Mr Graham Allen.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move motion 3—Petitions—
	That this House supports the establishment, at the start of the next Parliament, of a collaborative e-petitions system, which enables members of the public to petition the House of Commons and press for action from Government; and calls on the Procedure Committee to work with the Government and other interested parties on the development of detailed proposals.

Mr Speaker: With this, we shall discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to motion 3, line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add
	‘believes that the House of Commons should have its own e-petitions website, administered and controlled by this House and separate from that of the Government, though for cost saving purposes sharing the existing Government platform, that any hon. Member should be able to propose an e-petition for debate, regardless of the number of signatures the e-petition has obtained, that the Backbench Business Committee should allocate time on Mondays in Westminster Hall for debates arising from e-petitions directed to the House of Commons, but that any debate on a petition directed to Government should take place in Government time, that members of the public should be provided at the gateway to the websites with full information about how to ensure a petition is in order and to which institution their petition should most appropriately be directed, and that the House’s e-petitions websites should make it clear that the public may choose instead to contact their local hon. Member about an issue directly; and
	invites the Procedure Committee, consulting as appropriate with the Government, the Backbench Business Committee and any other interested parties, to develop a system meeting these objectives and to return to the House with proposals which may be implemented from the start of the next Parliament.’.
	Motion 4—Parliamentary Privilege—
	That, in light of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 226 and 227 of the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 100, this House resolves that legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on the activities of the House should in future contain express provision to this effect.
	Motion 5—Programming—
	That this House approves the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in its Sixth Report of 2013-14, Programming: proposal for a trial of new arrangements for the tabling of amendments to bills at report stage, HC 1220, that a trial should take place for the course of the 2014-15 Session of a three day deadline for the tabling of amendments and new clauses/schedules at report stage of all programmed bills.
	Motion 6—Calling of Amendments at the end of Debate (Amendments to Standing Orders)—
	That Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at the end of debate) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order made:
	‘Amendments to address in answer to the Queen’s Speech
	(1) In respect of a motion for an address in answer to Her Majesty’s Speech, the Speaker may select up to four amendments of which notice has been given.
	(2) No amendment may be selected before the penultimate day of the debate on such a motion.
	(3) If, on the last day on which such a motion is debated in the House, an amendment to it proposed by the Leader of the Opposition shall have been disposed of at or after the expiration of the time for opposed business, any further amendments selected by the Speaker may thereupon be moved, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.’.

Andrew Lansley: We move on to happier subjects. I will speak first to the motion on e-petitions. I will also address the other motions in my name, on parliamentary privilege and on Standing Order No. 33, and I will seek to move them formally at the end of the debate. I will also address the motion relating to programming, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and is supported by the Government.
	Hon. Members may recall that, following the work of both the Procedure Committee and the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, I have previously undertaken to bring forward proposals for an improved e-petitions system. I want to build on the successful features of the current system, which has seen more than 10 million individuals sign one or more of the 27,500 e-petitions that have been submitted, 145 of which have reached 10,000 signatures, leading to a formal response from the Government. Of those, 29 petitions have reached 100,000 signatures and become eligible to be considered for debate, 25 of which have been debated.
	The system provides a straightforward means by which people can submit a petition to raise an issue and press for action. As we have seen in debates such as those on Hillsborough, the badger cull, Sophie’s choice and the ban on female genital mutilation, petitions can be and are debated in Parliament. However, the system by which they are submitted is not approved or in any way owned by Parliament, and that is what I want to change. I want Parliament to share in the ownership of a modern e-petitions system that allows people to petition their Parliament, engage their elected representatives and, where appropriate, get a response from their Government.
	I have already held constructive discussions with a number of interested parties throughout the House on the principles of a new system, but a lot of stakeholders are involved and there is a lot of detail to be worked out. I am therefore not initially coming to the House with a fully worked up blueprint for approval. I want to work with others on some ideas that will produce the best result for petitioners, who are our constituents. This is a therefore a paving motion, which will allow the House to agree on the principle that a new system should be jointly owned and run by the Government and the House of Commons.
	To develop the detail of the new system with the House, the Government need a partner with which to work. We therefore propose that the Procedure Committee acts on behalf of the House in helping to shape the proposals. There will, no doubt, be other interested parties in the House and outside who will want to contribute, and that is entirely welcome.
	I wish to refer briefly to amendment (a) to the e-petitions motion, tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I confess that I am disappointed that he has felt the need to table an amendment that is largely about the detail of the new system, not least because those are exactly the sorts of discussions that I hope we can have as we develop it. I do not disagree with all the elements that he suggests, but I am confused by an amendment that rejects the notion of a collaborative system yet goes on to envisage the sharing of the existing Government platform. The amendment is internally inconsistent and, I would argue, flawed in principle as a consequence. I cannot, in any case, imagine what the public would make of our establishing two competing and overlapping e-petition systems, which would be the effect of the amendment.
	The hon. Gentleman is usually, and quite volubly, in the business of calling for the Executive to work in partnership with Parliament on legislation, on constitutional principles and on much else beyond. That is exactly what I am offering on e-petitions. It would be uncharacteristic of him to turn down such an offer, so I hope that he might not move his amendment.
	I hope that a new system can provide better service and support for petitioners. It would provide more flexibility for the House to consider e-petitions in a variety of ways and an enhanced capacity for the House to ensure that the Government respond to those petitions in a significant and adequate manner.
	The use of the platform already developed by the Government Digital Service will minimise the costs of the new system. Any additional staff costs will depend largely on the level and nature of the support provided to petitioners, and it may be that it can best be provided by the House’s outreach and information service. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that in the medium-term financial plan the House of Commons Commission has envisaged the provision of some modest support of that kind for a new e-petitions service.
	I do not seek to hide the scale of the system. Just under 10,000 petitions are submitted each year—the number settled down after an initial burst in 2011 to about 20 per day, which is a lot of petitions. The moderating, monitoring and sifting of those petitions is a considerable task, but the rules relating to them can make it a manageable, and I think a fair one. Whether we have a petitions committee to govern that process is a matter for discussion. I confess that I am in favour of some form of petitions committee to act on behalf of the House, to develop engagement with the public on petitions, and in the longer term to liaise with Government on e-petitions and the system. For the avoidance of doubt, this motion and any proposals we have do not impinge at all on the existing paper petitions system. That is a matter for the House, and in particular the Procedure Committee.
	The existing Government system will be taken down when Parliament is dissolved at the end of March next year. To ensure that a new system, based on the principles
	that I hope we can endorse today, is up and running from the start of the new Parliament, we must have reached agreement on the details of that new system by the end of this year, when I hope the House will be able to debate and decide on our joint proposals. With that in mind, I ask the House to approve the motion to allow the work we have started to continue, in close consultation with the Procedure Committee, as proposed.
	The Government are happy to support the proposal from the Procedure Committee in the motion on programming, which I hope will benefit the whole House. As hon. Members know, the Government have already addressed concerns expressed about Report stage by providing more time where necessary, with the result that fewer groups of amendments are now left undebated than in the last Parliament. In this Session alone, no fewer than 11 Bills have benefited from more than one day on Report. I remind the House that there were only 10 such Bills in the whole of the previous Parliament.
	By extending the deadline for the submission of amendments on Report from two to three days, the Government will be able to take full account of the number of amendments selected and grouped before tabling the supplementary programme motion. That will allow us better to match the available time to the weight and nature of amendments tabled. The deadline will rightly still be subject to the discretion of Mr Speaker. I emphasise that the Government will continue to seek to table amendments one week in advance of Report.

Mark Harper: On the supplementary programme motions, I have had to wrestle with getting the amount of time for each group of amendments correct when drafting programme motions. Does my right hon. Friend propose that in each case the Government will use knives to allocate time for each group of amendments, or will they try to balance that—perhaps in conversation with the House—with what they think is the demand? In some cases, it may be better just to let the debate fall in the usual way. I am not sure from the motion what is being proposed.

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend will recall from his experience of these matters, we sometimes believe it necessary to introduce what are known colloquially as “knives” into the programme motion to specify when discussion on certain groups of new clauses or amendments is to be concluded. However, we discuss that with the usual channels, and we try to ensure that the House gets the opportunity to debate all significant groups of amendments. The process of deciding whether we should do that or—as we sometimes rightly allow—whether to allow the debate on the amendments to proceed naturally, as it were, is not changed by the motion.
	In effect, the motion creates during its trial period an agreement across the House that amendments on Report should be tabled three rather than two days earlier. The benefit of that is that we are more likely to get the programme motion right and not find, as has happened in the past as my hon. Friend will recall, that Opposition or Back-Bench amendments are tabled on Report at quite a late stage and at a time when it is very difficult—not to put too fine a point on it—to incorporate them successfully into a programme motion that understands where the weight of the debate will be. That is what this motion is principally about. A trial period in the next
	Session would enable us to see whether the proposal turns out to benefit Back Benchers and whether there are any unforeseen disadvantages. I am pleased that the Procedure Committee has secured the support of the Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for the trial period, and has committed to reviewing its operation towards the end of the next Session. If judged successful, the Government will support a permanent change.
	Let me clarify that we start from a shared understanding that we use the term parliamentary privilege to describe a fundamental constitutional principle that guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament and allows us in this House to work on behalf of our constituents without the threat of interference from the courts. The motion on parliamentary privilege arises from the work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was established to consider the Government’s White Paper on that subject published in 2012. I place on record my thanks for the diligent work of the Committee on that complex issue, and I stress that, as set out in the Government’s formal response, we agree with the Committee in its central conclusion that there is no strong case for comprehensive codification. None the less, there are steps that the House can take—I stress that the operation of parliamentary privilege is a matter for the House rather than Government—to provide greater clarity.

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement of the work of the Committee on which I served. Will he take this opportunity to make clear that we enjoy parliamentary privilege not as a privilege but as an obligation and duty? It is a freedom we hold on behalf of our constituents; it is a protection for our constituents that their elected representatives can enjoy limited immunity in respect only of what we do in this House, so that we can act in their interests without fear or favour. It does not protect us from any aspect of criminal law should we commit any ordinary criminal offence, which is how it should be.

Andrew Lansley: I am hoping to make absolutely clear that this motion is in no sense about the law not applying equally to us as it would to any other member of the public. It is about what happens in this House and its proceedings, which require to be protected. Parliamentary privilege may have originated centuries ago, but it must always remain true. It may take a different character in terms of judicial activism, rather than Executive action, but none the less on behalf of our constituents we require what we do here to be done without fear or favour, and without risk of impeachment or prejudice from external parties. As my hon. Friend says, it is important for that privilege to be maintained for the benefit of our constituents.
	The motion before the House is a means by which I hope we can provide the clarity necessary for the effective operation of parliamentary privilege. An equivalent motion was agreed by the House of Lords on 20 March this year, after a full debate. In essence, it calls for clarity in the application of any particular legislation to Parliament. The need for further clarification on that point arises because there is some legal uncertainty as to
	the consequences of a decision of the courts in the Graham-Campbell case of 1935, which held that the protection afforded to this House by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege was wide. The scope of parliamentary privilege has been revisited by the courts and commentators in more recent times—notably by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Chaytor case. However, the Graham-Campbell case has not been expressly overruled, which has sometimes led to uncertainty over what needs to be said in an Act intended to apply to Parliament. The boundaries of parliamentary privilege will in practice be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis, so it is helpful to them if legislation makes clear Parliament’s intent when legislating in areas that might encroach on those boundaries. That is why this motion provides for explicit provision on that point in cases of doubt.
	In practice, that will require discussions between parliamentary counsel and the authorities of the two Houses on whether relevant provisions in Bills should apply to the activities of the two Houses, and for there to be express provision in the Bill where necessary. That is a sensible and pragmatic move towards providing greater clarity on a relatively obscure but important issue. As a matter of principle, I am sure we all agree that the law of the land should apply equally to Parliament, subject where appropriate to the protections of parliamentary privilege. I hope the House will agree to the motion so as to provide for that consistency across the two Houses.

Mark Harper: Of the two recommendations in the report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, the second was for the Government to take steps to ensure that Departments complied with the official guidance, issued by the Treasury Solicitor, to consult with the House authorities on legislation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will do that in every case? The report said that it happened in some cases, but not in every case.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. It was not an invariable practice. A moment ago I spoke about the necessity for discussions between parliamentary counsel and the authorities of the two Houses, and I hope that those discussions will enable us to meet the recommendations of the Joint Committee. That is important.
	What has, in part, led to the necessity of the motion is that different Bills have taken different approaches, sometimes seeing it as necessary to disapply parliamentary privilege and in other cases seeking to make it clear in legislation that parliamentary privilege applies. Our general proposition is that it is not required to say that parliamentary privilege applies—it does apply. However, we need to make it clear where the provisions of a Bill intend to have an effect on Parliament. In particular, we need to identify and specify where they may encroach on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, so that the courts have an unambiguous legislative provision that sets out to what extent Parliament has determined that the law, in that respect, applies to it.

Bernard Jenkin: It is important to emphasise that parliamentary privilege rests solely on an understanding between the courts and Parliament, albeit that that rests
	on article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is implicit that the Bill of Rights overrides every other Act of Parliament. All we are saying in the motion, for the avoidance of doubt, is that that is the case unless an Act of Parliament specifically says otherwise. In the absence of any provision in any Act of Parliament, article 9 applies and the courts, who do not wish to interfere in the proceedings of Parliament, will respect that.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and he expresses that very helpfully. That is precisely what we are looking for. We do not suggest that it is not the responsibility of the courts to determine to what extent legislation applies, but that Parliament, through these legislative provisions and the discussions that will lead to them, should give the courts a clear expression of where in legislation that boundary applies, and legislation should apply, to Parliament in any particular instance. It must be in the best interests of this House, Parliament and the courts for us to be clear about what we intend to achieve in legislation. That is principally what we are trying to do.

Bernard Jenkin: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. The resolution does not need to be followed by any legislation. It is implicit that article 9 applies—end of story. The only time legislation might impinge on article 9, and the only time we are saying that it could possibly impinge on article 9, is if Parliament expresses that explicitly in a subsequent Act of Parliament. However, we do not anticipate doing that, so article 9 applies.

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The motion is not about giving rise to legislation. It is about this House sharing directly, in the same terms as the House of Lords, an expression about how we should frame legislation in future to make clear the relationship between this House, and the privilege applying to this House, and legislation, particularly in circumstances in which legislation is intended to apply to this House and its activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to agree with that.

William Cash: I want to be clear that the Leader of the House is endorsing paragraphs 226 and 227 of the report in terms, because they are quite explicit. They set out the position. On the one hand, the objective is simple; on the other, it is quite complex. It is important, for the purposes of this debate, that the words of our conclusions on these matters are explicitly set out and not just referred to as paragraphs 226 and 227.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I am setting out to secure the agreement of the House on the motion before us. What we intend should be in the motion before us, and not what is beyond or additional to it. We intend to achieve just that.

William Cash: Would it be convenient if the words themselves were read out, so that we can be certain that everybody understands them? That is really what I am getting at.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is free to make his own contribution to the debate. For my part, I hope I have explained what we intend to achieve through the motion. Colleagues will have had the opportunity to look at the
	debate in the House of Lords, and I hope that exactly the same was clear from the nature of that debate. The purpose is to ensure that we have, in both Houses, an understanding that we should not have mutually conflicting approaches to legislation. We should approach legislation in a consistent fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) told us, we should have a way of recognising the application of parliamentary privilege to the proceedings of this House. We should also ensure that, in so far as we intend legislation to apply to this House and where it may have an impact on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, we put express provisions in the legislation to show, for Parliament’s purposes, what we believe the nature of those provisions and their application should be. That is what we are setting out to do.
	On proposed new Standing Order No. 33, Members may recall, from the debate on the motion for an address in answer to the Queen’s Speech last May, that the current Standing Order does not provide absolute clarity on the number of amendments that may be selected on the final day of the debate. To be clear, a revised Standing Order is not an attempt to prevent you, Mr Speaker, selecting an amendment, as you did on that occasion. It would not prevent you from doing that. As you will recall, you selected an amendment signed by Back Benchers on the omission from the Gracious Speech of an EU referendum Bill. That was, in fact, the second amendment selected, in line with normal practice. The third amendment selected, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members, was the one beyond normal practice that would not, under previous practice, have been allowed.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend will recall that he put down a motion on the Order Paper last autumn to restrict Mr Speaker’s discretion to accepting only three amendments. I am glad, as the person who blocked that original motion, that he has had second thoughts and is now going to allow Mr Speaker to select up to four amendments. Can my right hon. Friend explain why he feels we need to inhibit Mr Speaker exercising his discretion in this matter?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend asks me to complete my speech, which, happily, is what I intend to do.
	The interpretation of the Standing Order that allowed the selection of the third amendment on that final day leaves open the possibility of an unlimited number of amendments for separate debate. That introduces both an unwelcome element of uncertainty, in particular if Members were to table several amendments regretting the exclusion of their favourite Bill from the Queen’s Speech. I am not sure that Members or the Chair would want such a rich choice; nor do I think it was the intention of the Standing Order, when it was originally drafted, to permit votes.
	What I am seeking, for the benefit of the House, is greater certainty. Members will want to know the maximum number of amendments that may be selected in order to judge whether to table one themselves. It is a matter of degree as to whether the total number of amendments selected should be limited to three or four. Do we want to spend more time debating or voting? The question in my mind originally was: what is the purpose of amendments, principally when the debate on the motion for an address
	is concerned? It is, essentially, an opportunity for competing views on the legislative programme as a whole to be debated. Therefore, my original preference is for what we had thought was the status quo—that is, three amendments under the Standing Order—but I am congenitally relaxed about the number being four.

Angela Eagle: It is good to see the Leader of the House congenitally relaxing in the Chamber. Looking back at the record, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is only since the second world war that we decided to choose so few amendments to the Queen’s Speech. It was, in fact, a regular occurrence previously to see six or eight amendments—or even 13 in 1904. Why has he picked on four for today’s motion?

Andrew Lansley: I picked on four because that was the number recommended by the Procedure Committee as its preferred figure—and I think that is right, actually. It seems to me that going further would tip the balance too far. I take the shadow Leader of the House’s point about what might have happened in the further reaches of the last century, but for nearly 40 years we operated on the basis of having no more than three amendments. Technically, and strictly, the Standing Order was not unambiguous. As it turned out, it had been interpreted previously as meaning three amendments, but it was capable of being interpreted as meaning more, or any number. In my view, it is not the purpose of Standing Orders to be ambiguous; their purpose is to be clear. The Procedure Committee took the view in its original proposal that four was appropriate. I was not of that view, but I am content to support it: there is no point in having a Procedure Committee and then not listening to it; we listened very carefully.

Graham Allen: While the Leader of the House is in listening mode to Select Committee Chairs, I should advertise the fact that today the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee published our report on fixed-term Parliaments. This is the first time that we know we are in the last year of a Parliament—from one end to the other. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, therefore, whether this is an appropriate time to use the House for purposes other than passing Government legislation? Of course that needs to happen, but we could have more private Member’s debates, more Adjournment debates, more consideration of policy and, dare I say it, more amendments to the Queen’s Speech and on important policy issues—ahead of the public taking a decision in 363 days’ time.

Andrew Lansley: Happily, I have had an opportunity to read the report of the hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee. As his Committee was sitting earlier this morning, he was not in his place for business questions, when I took an opportunity to refer to the report. His Committee pointed out that the certainty surrounding a fixed-term Parliament provides greater opportunity for the planning of legislation, with a greater understanding of how much legislative time will be available. When he hears the Queen’s Speech early next month, he will see that a substantial legislative programme is intended for the full Session. That will not prevent us from meeting our
	obligations under Standing Orders for Back-Bench debates, Opposition time and other requirements. Indeed, in this Session, we have exceeded them, so we are already providing time for precisely the things that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Christopher Chope: Let me draw out my right hon. Friend further on whether he thinks it is a good idea that Back Benchers should be able collectively to table amendments in the Queen’s Speech debates. It obviously struck a chord with the people when that happened—on the issue of the EU referendum—during the last Queen’s Speech debates. Were there no coalition after the next election and three Opposition parties with reasonable representation, Mr Speaker might feel that his discretion had to be exercised in favour of those Opposition parties. It is possible that, even with four amendments, the opportunity for Back Benchers to put forward amendments in the hope of their being selected by Mr Speaker would be excluded. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he thinks it is important that Back Benchers have such an opportunity? If, after the next election, there were more official Opposition parties, would he recommend returning to the issue to allow for more than four amendments?

Andrew Lansley: I would say two things about that. First, it is open to the House to reconsider these issues in the future. The original drafting of Standing Order No. 33 was partly a product of the political and party composition of the House in the 1970s. One could consider circumstances in which the House might think it appropriate to expand the opportunities in future for parties, were there a multiplicity of them, to express their collective view on the legislative programme as a whole through amendments.
	That brings me to my second point. At the outset of this part of the debate, I want to emphasise that the issue did not really arise in relation to the Back-Bench amendment last year, because it was selectable and selected on the basis of the previous interpretation of the Standing Orders. That was not the issue—the issue was the additional Plaid Cymru amendment. However, were we to go down the path of thinking that on each motion for an address, it would be appropriate to debate the inclusion or exclusion of individual Bills, that would posit the question whether the purpose of the motion for an address is something other than an expression about the legislative programme as a whole. Amendments designed for that purpose should relate to the whole legislative programme rather than to individual Bills.
	I have expressed my view on Standing Order No. 33, and I hope that the House will support the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in that respect. There are a number of motions before us, and I hope the House will support the making of these changes, which I believe will be positive. Notwithstanding the fact that we will have a good debate about them, they were intended to be brought forward in a consensual spirit.

Angela Eagle: I will address each motion in turn, although it is a bit unfortunate that the Leader of the House has chosen to shoehorn all these quite disparate reports into one short debate,
	because it makes it hard for us to do justice to the detail in the time allowed. However, I shall do what I can to achieve that.
	If we are to make our proceedings more transparent, understandable and accessible to the general public, Parliament must always be open to making changes to its more arcane procedures. At a time when there is increasing alienation and disengagement from politics, it is crucial to foster positive engagement and make the case for reinvigorating a lively and vibrant democratic debate with the Commons at its centre. We should judge the motions before us against that aspiration.
	The first motion is on e-petitions. In the 21st century, it is surely right to facilitate the use of digital access to Parliament and Government, and may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on introducing an e-petitions site on the No. 10 web pages, which has proved very popular? Indeed, some important issues have been debated in the House as a result of the new process—not least the Hillsborough disaster and the subsequent injustices faced by the victims’ families.
	The problem has been the misunderstandings that the Government’s e-petitions site has fostered among the public. As the Procedure Committee pointed out in its 7th report in the 2010-12 Session, the way in which the Government established the e-petitions system caused a great deal of confusion in the public mind between the Executive and the legislature. Understandably, it also raised false expectations among members of the public who organised petitions about what might be the effect of reaching 100,000 signatures for their proposition. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, which has a role in trying to schedule some of these debates, has long had to cope with the anger and disappointment of those members of the public who felt that they were misled by what the Procedure Committee identified as the
	“failure, on the part of the Government, adequately to explain the process to petitioners.”
	So after two years of prevarication about how to improve the e-petitions system, we have now had a sudden late flurry of activity from the Leader of the House, and it seems to have taken some of our Select Committee colleagues by surprise. Last week, he seemed to be on a collision course with three House Committees about the appropriate way forward, in a reprise of his feat on the lobbying Act. He has thankfully backed off a little and agreed the compromise motion we have before us.
	It is certainly one solution to suggest that e-petitions are jointly run between Parliament and the Government, and I am encouraged at the prospect of members of the public having a greater clarity and a clearer path to influencing the Government as well as Parliament with their petitions. There is, though, also a strong case for handing the e-petitions system over to Parliament in its entirety. Indeed, that is the case made in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who chairs the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. However, his amendment rather pre-empts the work that we should be asking the Procedure Committee to do on the way forward, so I am happy to support the motion unamended, but that does not mean I disagree with every aspect of what he says.

Graham Allen: rose—

Angela Eagle: I can see that my hon. Friend is itching to get up, so I will certainly give way.

Graham Allen: To ensure that my hon. Friend does not have something on the record with which she feels uncomfortable, may I say that I am not proposing that the House takes over the whole of e-petitioning? On the contrary, I am very clear, and I will make this clearer in my remarks, that there has to be a separation, with appropriate petitions to the Government and to Parliament. There are two different functions, and I want to be clear so that she does not misinterpret my amendment.

Angela Eagle: I am looking forward to my hon. Friend’s speech, in which I believe he will go into the detail of the work we all hope the Procedure Committee will be doing as it looks to the future. I hope it will be able to come up with recommendations that the whole House can agree on as to how to make the e-petitions system more robust, transparent and understandable to members of the public. I know that he will have important points to make about that. The Opposition look forward to working with the Procedure Committee as it drafts proposals for implementation at the start of the next Parliament.
	We must be careful not to see e-petitions as some kind of silver bullet that will help us to solve the crisis of political engagement in our country. Undoubtedly they have a part to play, but we have to keep things in perspective. This Government came to office making some very grand promises about the “biggest shake-up” of British democracy since the Great Reform Act 1832, but the reality has been somewhat smaller in scope than that vainglorious ambition: we have had a failed attempt to reform the Lords, a massive and clearly partisan increase in the number of unelected peers, and a lobbying Act so bad it should actually have been described as a charter for lobbyists. Ranged against the massive failure of delivery, making welcome but small and slow progress on e-petitions seems a very small improvement, although a welcome one.
	That brings me on to the second motion, which concerns the outcome of the Government’s work on parliamentary privilege. The Conservative party began this in opposition by promising a parliamentary privilege Act to make sure that MPs cannot
	“claim parliamentary privilege to evade justice”.
	That intention was repeated in the Conservative manifesto and in the subsequent coalition agreement. Since then, it has become clear from the outcome of court cases, especially the Chaytor judgment, that MPs cannot use Parliamentary privilege to evade justice, and that the current Government were actually tilting at windmills when they were in opposition. Following the Government’s Green Paper on privilege and the work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was published in June 2013, it has become clear that there is no need for a parliamentary privilege Act. Today’s motion implicitly accepts that and instead suggests a few minor but sensible clarifications of existing practice.
	The motion accepts the Joint Committee’s suggestion in paragraphs 226 and 227 of its report that any legislation which creates individual rights that might impinge on the activities of both Houses should, for the avoidance
	of doubt, expressly say so. That will reinforce official guidance issued by the Treasury Solicitor in 2002, which has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It is certainly desirable that there is consistency across government about the way in which Bills are drafted when they may impinge on this issue, and the Opposition support this clarification. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) helpfully pointed out, it is in the interests of a healthy parliamentary democracy that MPs can speak on the Floor of the House without fear of being sued for libel by powerful interests which may be seeking to silence them—that is an example of how this principle is applied in practice. In many ways, I feel that the term “privilege” could almost have been invented to be misunderstood as meaning some kind of privilege for individuals—Members of this House—which puts them above the rights of others. We have that capacity to speak in this way only so that we can represent the interests of our constituents and those who voted to send us to this place. That is surely in the interests of robust democracy. The term “privilege” is often very misunderstood by people outside in a very unhelpful way.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady puts the point very well. To reinforce what she says about privilege attracting to proceedings in Parliament as opposed to individuals, may I say that members of the public who give evidence in Select Committee proceedings can be protected by that privilege too? That is an important example of the relevance of proceedings as opposed to individuals here.

Angela Eagle: I could not agree more. I believe the hon. Gentleman served on the Joint Committee—

Robert Buckland: No, I served on the Committee on Standards.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee on Standards, makes an extremely good point: the term “privilege” applies not only to Members of Parliament, but, much more appropriately, to proceedings of this Parliament. That is there to protect our democracy from being undermined by powerful forces which may have more finance at their disposal to try to intimidate those who wish to represent their constituents robustly.

Graham Allen: Will my hon. Friend consider, or even request the Procedure Committee to consider, changing the word, redefining “privilege” and saying, “In future Acts, past Acts and in Standing Orders we should refer simply to ‘freedom of speech in Parliament.”?

Angela Eagle: I suspect that will not do, because of the history of how parliamentary privilege has developed. The Joint Committee did think about looking at a review of previous Acts of Parliament so that we could deal with this point and concluded that it would actually cause more trouble and anomalies than it would solve.

Bernard Jenkin: I support the hon. Lady’s response to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) because he has just made the classic error of thinking that
	privilege refers solely to freedom of speech in Parliament, and it does not, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said. The term “privilege” is a technical one that applies in many spheres of life; we talk about legal privilege for solicitors and the privilege of the courts, and we should not try to redefine the term, as we would be tempting the courts to start to adjudicate on the very thing we do not want to tempt them to adjudicate on. That shows the importance of her explicit endorsement of these two paragraphs of our report.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a knotty and a thorny issue. I suspect that we need a translation of the term, so that lay people who are not technically proficient in constitutional law can understand that it is a good thing rather than something that gives Members of Parliament, or others who may be giving evidence in the House, a significant advantage.

Robert Buckland: I am fascinated by this aspect of the debate. I think that the London mob of the 1640s understood what the word “privilege” meant when they used to shout it at the King as he passed by in his carriage. I think we should stop apologising to the public and assuming that they are not capable of understanding such words. If we show leadership and explain the meaning of the words, of course the public will understand them. Let us avoid iconoclasm; let us use these honoured and great words in the spirit in which they were originally intended.

Angela Eagle: I always worry about iconoclasm. There have been certain ages in our history when it has played an interesting role. Perhaps Members should embark on a tour immediately to explain to people out there how important these concepts are to the health of our democracy. I think we all agree on that, but we need to translate it into phrases that can be easily understood by those who do not have a degree in constitutional law.
	As I have said, we are more than happy to support the general view that the Government have now reached, after much work. They have sensibly declined to introduce a codification of parliamentary privilege, and have provided helpful clarifications. However, I have one further question to ask before I leave the issue of privilege. The Joint Committee suggested in its report that the Government should repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, which might more accurately have been named “the Hamilton amendment”. It was disgracefully inserted by the last Conservative Government to facilitate the issuing of a libel action in the “cash for questions” scandal by the then Conservative Member of Parliament, now UKIP fundraiser, Neil Hamilton, allowing him to waive privilege in order to sue The Guardian. The Joint Committee observed that that had created indefensible anomalies which should not be allowed to continue, and I agree. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Deputy Leader of the House will confirm that the Government intend to repeal section 13 through the Deregulation Bill, which is due to be debated in the House on Wednesday.
	The third motion relates to a proposed trial of new arrangements for the tabling of amendments to Bills on Report. I welcome the suggested earlier deadline, and agree that it is important to ensure that we have enough
	time to draft a detailed supplementary programme motion that will enable us to debate all the groups of amendments. During the current Parliament, too much legislation has been passed without the House having had an adequate chance to debate it. The Government have also got into the habit of dropping controversial changes to their Bills into the legislative stages in the Lords, thereby avoiding effective scrutiny in the Commons.
	The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is perhaps the most egregious example of that wholly regrettable practice. It was inserted into a Bill at the last minute during its House of Lords stages. The Bill then returned to the Commons, but our amendments were effectively talked out. We were able to debate the board’s abolition in the Chamber on an Opposition day, but by then the legislation had already been passed.

David Nuttall: Does the hon. Lady not accept that during the final eight parliamentary Sessions under the last Labour Government, 16 groups of amendments were not reached on Report? That is made clear in the appendix to the third report of the Procedure Committee.

Angela Eagle: I am not trying to suggest that the issue rests solely with the current Government. In fact, it has arisen because of the issue of timetabling itself. I am long enough in the tooth to have been in the House before there was any timetabling, although there were guillotines, which could not be applied until a Bill had been debated for three hours. That system had advantages and disadvantages. Programming also has advantages and disadvantages, but I think that, if we are to have it, we must try to ensure that games are not played, and it is not possible for swathes of Bills to be passed without debate because the end of the timetable has been reached.
	There is always tension between the time that is allowed for a Bill to pass through its stages and the tactical game-playing in which Oppositions, Governments or large groups of Back Benchers—or, indeed, small groups—may engage in order to have a particular effect on a Bill. I think it important for us to try to ensure that groups of amendments have at least a reasonable chance of being debated.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Lady not find it strange, given the number of Members who assert the primacy of this, the elected Chamber, when it comes to arguments about voting systems and House of Lords reform, that time limits that do not apply elsewhere are tolerated here, along with the convention that Governments who do not accept amendments in this House will, if the amendments are worthy, table them themselves in the House of Lords?

Angela Eagle: That is an important point. In this House, simply because the Government normally have a majority and because timetabling exists, there is the capacity for Bills pass through their stages fairly quickly. No such capacity exists in the other place, and the Government of the day are therefore tempted to try to get their Bills through this House as rapidly as possible and then fix them in the other House. That is a real problem when the other House is not democratic. I think that we must see what we can do to improve the capacity of this House to scrutinise legislation, albeit in the context of the generally accepted view that, in the British political system, the Government should be allowed to secure
	their legislation. The Opposition and other Members ought to be allowed to scrutinise Bills adequately as well, and it is with that balance that we are wrestling now.
	Another issue that I raised in a letter to the Chair of the Procedure Committee about the proposed trial is the importance of giving Opposition parties enough time to respond to Government amendments when they are tabled. I know the Government say that they try to table amendments a week before the deadline, but that happens too infrequently. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us whether he would consider extending the trial and giving the Government a deadline perhaps a day before that given to other Members, so that opposition Members—be they small groups of Government Members, large groups of Government Members, or members of the Official Opposition—have a chance to respond to Government amendments in a sensible way.
	The final motion proposes changes to Standing Order No. 33, which relates to amendments to the Queen’s Speech. To date, Mr Speaker, you have had discretion to decide which amendments will be called in the debate following the Queen’s Speech, which sets out the Government’s legislative programme for the parliamentary Session. The amendment to the Standing Order proposes to change that by limiting the number of amendments that you may call to four. That extends by one the number to which the Government were originally determined to limit you, and it represents a welcome Government climbdown in the face of a likely defeat. We naturally support it, with good grace and, perhaps, a little snigger.
	I am sure that Members will recall last year’s Queen’s Speech, when nearly 100 Conservative Eurosceptic Back Benchers tabled an amendment to “respectfully regret” their own Government’s legislative programme, and 130 Members backed it in what was a humiliating blow to the Prime Minister’s authority. The amendment forced the Prime Minister to commit to legislating for a referendum in this Parliament on possible European Union treaty changes which have not yet even been talked about and which may or may not happen. This shows we have a Prime Minister who is more interested in managing his own unruly party than acting in Britain’s national interest, but it also demonstrates that his own Back Benchers are running scared of UKIP and do not believe a word he says on Europe.
	In the light of last year’s debacle, it is no wonder the Government are so keen to limit the number of Queen’s Speech amendments and it is ironic that the threat of mutiny on their Back Benches, supported by the Opposition, is what forced the Leader of the House to concede that he should now perhaps agree with the Procedure Committee’s figure of four, rather than his original number of three.

Christopher Chope: If the hon. Lady is so concerned about this, why did the Opposition not table a blocking motion to the original Government proposal, which would have gone through on the nod if it had not been for my blocking motion?

Angela Eagle: I cannot recall the intricacies of what happened. The hon. Gentleman is always assiduous in these things, but I think there was somebody on the
	Labour Benches who objected at the same time. The hon. Gentleman has a very loud voice and has a lot more practice in objecting to these motions than almost anyone else in the House, which is why he probably got his objection in first.
	I accept that the Leader of the House has now backed down on this, and because he has, we are happy to accept the motion before us today, which will limit, for now, the number of amendments to four. I listened with interest to the earlier debate about how that might change and I welcome the Leader of the House’s admission that if the composition of the House were to change or the circumstances of a future Parliament were different, Standing Order No. 33 may once again come under the microscope. At least he has accepted the inevitable and changed his motion, and because of that we are more than happy to support him should there be a vote today.

Charles Walker: First, I want to thank the Leader of the House for being so expansive in his arguments and when explaining the reasons behind many of the Government’s positions. I will focus first on some of the Procedure Committee recommendations, and come on to the issues relating to e-petitions at the end of my short speech.
	I think that the decision on Standing Order No. 33, which allows amendments to be called at the end of the Queen’s Speech, was made after consultation between the Leader of the House and interested parties. I think it reflects a certain maturity in his office, a willingness to listen to diverse views and, in the end, an ability to make the right decision. The Leader of the House knows that no decision will be met uniformly with acclaim. That is just not possible, but I think that what we have before us today is about the best result we could have hoped for. It reflects the original position put forward by the Procedure Committee after consultation with various interested parties, including the Speaker’s office, the Leader of the House’s office and the shadow Leader of the House. So the decision on Standing Order No. 33 is a step in the right direction and I welcome it.
	The Procedure Committee has also made some recommendations around programming. I could spend the next 10 minutes focusing on those aspects of our report that the Government rejected and do not feel comfortable about, but that would be extremely churlish. Today, as we head towards the Prorogation of this Parliament, we should focus on the positives that have come out of our reports, not the negatives. I regard this as a journey and all journeys start with a step, and then baby steps along the way until eventually we reach our point of arrival. I might not be alive to see that point of arrival, but it is just possible that my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be able to celebrate that.
	Our changes to programming come under the heading “Boring but important.” Anybody who reads The Week magazine, which makes us all instant experts—give it 10 minutes of our time and we become a world expert on what is going on in Ukraine, South Africa or Brazil—will know it has a section headed “Boring but important”, and I think that that applies to our changes to programming. They might be boring but they are very, very important.

Mark Harper: And very exciting.

Charles Walker: And quite exciting. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for that useful intervention from a sedentary position.
	As things currently stand, let us imagine what would happen if we were taking the Report stage of a Bill on a Thursday. Colleagues will remember that there were occasions when we did consider Government business on a Thursday. We do not do that any more and many see that as an advance.
	I greatly enjoy the opportunity to have Backbench Business Committee debates and to hear from informed colleagues about the subjects that matter to them and their constituents, so I am not harking back nostalgically to having Report stages on Thursdays. Rather, I am just asking us to imagine what the process would look like were we doing a Report stage on a Thursday now. On Tuesday night, amendments and new clauses would need to be tabled by 7.30 pm, when the House rises. On Wednesday morning amendments and new clauses would appear on the Order Paper. That evening the Government, following discussions with the usual channels, would table a supplementary programme motion dividing the time between the various new clauses and amendments. I am afraid that, at present, the supplementary programme motions are often informed guesswork. On that Thursday morning the selection and grouping would be circulated to Members, but the problem is that the supplementary programme motion is tabled before selection and grouping appears so it cannot take account of that selection and grouping. Therefore we get the inefficient allocation of time that creates difficulties for Members.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Charles Walker: If I have made a terrible mistake, I give way reluctantly to my hon. Friend.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and he certainly has not made a mistake. It just occurred to me that if the Government are aware of these matters slightly earlier in the proceedings, they may be able to use that information to their advantage to stop debate on things that they find inconvenient.

Charles Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, mostly because it was not targeted at me.
	Let me explain what we are proposing. I think it is important that anybody who takes an interest in our debates or in parliamentary procedure or who reads Hansard should know what these changes mean. As of the next Session, on Monday the amendments and new clauses would be tabled. On Tuesday the amendments and new clauses would appear on the Order Paper. On Wednesday morning the draft selection and grouping would be done by the Speaker, and after that the supplementary programme motion would be tabled, and we would have the Report stage on Thursday.
	I do not think that this will create a new nirvana for the House of Commons—that is an impossible aspiration—but let us just hope that this is a small improvement that pays some rather large dividends, because it is important for our constituents to know that their elected representatives will, if they feel strongly about something, get the chance to debate such issues or concerns on the Floor of the House during the Report stage. That is what we are proposing, and I am
	delighted that the Government have accepted it on a trial basis. I hope that it proves to be an enormous success.
	Finally, I want to talk about e-petitions. The Procedure Committee is delighted to look at the issue. It has been bubbling away for a number of years and the systems we have, and have had, are by no means perfect. I hear the concerns raised by my fellow Select Committee Chairmen on the Opposition Benches. First, it is important that when we have e-petitions we do not set unrealistic expectations as to what can be achieved. We sit in a representative democracy; we are elected by our constituents to come here to represent them and our seats, and to raise their concerns in this place. We are not delegates; we are representatives and it is important to remember that. That is why an e-petitioning system that provides for additional debates in this place must not come at the cost of existing debates relating to Members of Parliament or those moved by Members of Parliament in approaches to the Backbench Business Committee. It is possible in the parliamentary weekly calendar to find more time for these debates to take place. Westminster Hall, for example, is still not fully utilised. Again, in bringing forward this additional time, we do need to set realistic expectations of what can be achieved. Having a debate in this place allows for issues of the day to be aired and for the Government to take note of those issues and go away and reflect on them, but it does not lead to a guarantee of legislation, and it is important that people entering the e-petition system understand that.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that, ideally, the House of Commons will play a lead role in the petition system. I wish to see the wonderful officers of the House at the forefront of this process, guiding and explaining petitioners through the process, and explaining to them what they can hope to achieve from an e-petition. I very much see the House of Commons at the heart of this process, and that is not to be churlish to the Leader of the House or to the Government. I hope that the Procedure Committee will hear from the Government and from interested parties across the House and outside this place who want to see the best possible petition system put in place. The system should carry the confidence not only of the public, which is of course important, but critically of Members of Parliament, who will have to be at the forefront of taking a petition forward and moving it through the House of Commons.
	That is really all I have to say. I thank the Clerk of my Committee and his team for all their hard work, and also those members of my Committee who have turned up today from beautiful places such as Birmingham, Somerset and Bury. What a fantastic effort it is for all these people to be here today supporting this Committee report when I know that they have pressing engagements in their own constituencies that they have had to put on hold.
	Without detaining the House much further, I will make just one final point. There is one outstanding report left—it is outstanding because of its content and because it has not yet been dealt with—and that relates to private Members’ Bills. Our Committee is not suggesting anything revolutionary. We have come to a good agreement and compromise with the Government on what is achievable
	in the next Session, and I hope that we find time to debate that report on the Floor of the House before this Session ends in the next few days.

Graham Allen: Let me start by touching on a couple of democratic principles that underlie some of the issues before us. The first is about whether we are a representative democracy or whether, because we are held so much in contempt by the public, we want to become a direct democracy. That is why e-petitions could either be advantageous to us or play into the hands of those who want to see a Parliament even more diminished, especially those in newsrooms and media offices up and down the land who have the ability to get up 100,000 signatures and put pressure on Government and Parliament. Under motion 3 as it stands, that pressure could be transferred from Government to Parliament. Parliament is a handy whipping boy for so many of these issues, including expenses. Governments of all parties have shown a great facility in ditching Parliament—leaving Parliament holding the baby for issues that have been the responsibility of Government.
	One issue is about explaining what we are. Earlier, we had a mini debate about privilege. It was all about these poor people out there who do not really understand these arcane bits of judicial archaeology, and the fact that there is something wrong with the public. One Member said that we need to lead them and be stronger in explaining these things, but we have tried that for many decades. We have all discovered that even when we try to explain the concept of reimbursements using the word “expenses”, it does not always work. Explaining how Parliament and Government are different from each other is one of our main duties, because people lump us together. Indeed, this business in front of us today is an example of the Government trying to get that conflation of two institutions. Even though we will not change minds today on the Government Front Bench, it is important that we keep those Front-Bench Members honest and point out that we know what they are trying to do, even if there is not much we can do about it other than heckle the steamroller.
	That choice over whether we go to a serious representative democracy and continue to try to rebuild Parliament or whether we abstain from that and hand over to a plebiscitary democracy is one that all Members need to consider.

Mark Harper: I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little cynical about those on the Front Bench. The problem with what he is trying to do, which is to have two petition systems—one to Government and one to Parliament—ignores the fact that Government are accountable to Parliament. They are only the Government because they have a majority in Parliament. Having two separate systems would be worse than having this House and the Government working together collaboratively. With respect, what he is suggesting is not helpful; it is the opposite.

Graham Allen: Obviously, I do not spend all my time in the Chamber, but during the 26 years that I have been here, I have missed that occasion when Government were accountable to Parliament. What we have here is the mythology of parliamentary sovereignty—the hon.
	Gentleman knows that and we have discussed it in front of my Committee—in which Government can use and abuse Parliament on a daily basis. They can set the agenda of Parliament on a daily basis. It is a little disingenuous to pretend that it is Parliament holding Government to account. If we conflate two systems, we will make things harder. Rather than Parliament being able to say, “The Government have not responded to a legitimate petition”, we will have to share the blame for the problem. If we do not have a petitioning system of our own, we will not have direct redress, through which we can say to the Government, “We have discussed this, as many people have requested of us, and we have a view. What are you now going to do?” Parliament legislates and, in theory, holds Government to account, but it is the institution of Government who execute and put Acts into the parliamentary sausage machine. Putting the two together continues the deception that Parliament can effectively hold the Government to account. What we need to do is build our accountability function, not give it away to Government.

Mark Harper: The problem is that, if we have a petitioning system directly to Government, we then suggest to Government that they respond directly to the people who have petitioned them, completely bypassing this House. I would prefer Government to interact with the public through Parliament, keeping Members of Parliament in that conversation rather than excluding them.

Graham Allen: We have an e-petitioning system at the moment which is to the Government and to which the Government have to respond. What we are discussing is giving Parliament its own e-petitioning capability, so that it can engage as a partner in a debate with Government. That has to be healthier than one organisation or the other imposing its will, as happens continually in our proceedings, with Government dominating Parliament. This is a minor demonstration of the mythology and fallacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and therefore it is useful to bring it to the attention of the House.

Mark Durkan: Is the hon. Gentleman’s point not even more marked when one considers that the current e-petition system is widely talked about as the Downing street e-petition system for securing a debate in Parliament? When it is talked about in those terms it is as though debate in this House is absolutely controlled by Downing street, and that is bad for the reputation of this House.

Graham Allen: It is bad for the reputation of the House, but it is the truth. It is useful to call a spade a spade and to call a Downing street petition a Downing street or Government petition. Let us keep it like that and people will see the response they get from Government and will, through the processes of the House and its individual Members, be able to do something through the House of Commons itself. We cannot change the law for people, but we can bring issues to the attention of the Government. We need that capability to keep the Government honest and to hold them to account when many people see that as the way forward.
	The fundamental question is about the separation of powers. We ought to have that, as it would be quite useful and would develop a more pluralistic view of our
	politics. People might not share that view and might think that we can somehow collaborate beyond merely using the platform and technology that are already there—I am perfectly happy to use that platform and technology to save the House money, as we all want that, and I am prepared to compromise on that alone—but an e-petition site for Parliament should be run by Parliament, not the agency we are meant to be keeping under control and holding to account. It is a contradiction in terms that the very people we should be holding to account will be running our system. I hope that the Procedure Committee will be very clear about that as it considers the issue. We all want to be pally and we all want to have little chats with the Leader of the House, but at the end of the day we either have our own e-petitioning system or we have not. If we have not, let us concede that and admit it clearly.

Natascha Engel: My only issue with my hon. Friend’s amendment is that I support the idea that a proposal should be developed by the Procedure Committee and cannot understand for the life of me why he does not submit what he has written in his amendment, much of which I agree with, to that inquiry, rather than tabling it for debate on the Floor of the House today. On that point, does he intend to press it to a vote?

Graham Allen: I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that I will make representations and, if I am allowed, I will give evidence to the Procedure Committee on the views held by many people in the House about the independence of the House’s institutions and agencies. I do not see Parliament as a sub-office of Government, a Government Department or an offshoot of Government. It is an independent institution that is legitimately and directly elected by the public, as are we all. The current Government and all Governments of the past cannot claim to be that.
	The proposal in motion 3 smacks a little of a tidy-up job. The Government have said, “It is a little inconvenient to get all this stuff coming to No. 10 Downing street. We have to deal with it, so why don’t we push it over to the House of Commons and run the system for them? Then they can take the blame if we fail.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) knows more than anybody in this House that if a petition reaches the barrier of 100,000 signatures there is an expectation, which has been deliberately inflated by Government, that it has somehow earned and deserves a debate. It is a difficult to pin down where that idea came from, but it was put out there and that is the assumption. That is why in every newsroom—in The Sun, the Daily Mail and elsewhere—the idea is to reach that barrier of 100,000 signatures on a petition to put pressure on my hon. Friend to grant a debate. There are other ways in which that pressure can be seen and relieved rather than by perverting and twisting the honourable institution that is the petitioning of this House.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Petitions cannot be a panacea for the public. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have often received a communication from one individual that has spurred me into action, so powerful has it been. That has led to my approaching Government and colleagues in the House to ask for action to be taken.

Graham Allen: I agree, and I shall come on to the point about how we direct people to a better way of doing what they want to do. It is risky to give people the idea that by submitting a petition to the House of Commons they are making their demands, only for them not to be met. The Leader of the House said that would be a great advantage, as it would make people think that the process represents progress and is more inclusive, and it would encourage people to use the House of Commons. On the contrary, if we allow the idea to be out there that if a petition reaches 100,000 signatures it somehow deserves a debate, which those horrible people in the House of Commons are preventing, it will lift people only to drop them back down again. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire has some experience of that, but it will be as nothing compared with the expectation that could be built up if we operate the Government’s petitions process rather than having our own based on open and honest rules that do not try to deceive people into thinking that if they write in they will get a debate.

Natascha Engel: Perhaps my intervention was not clear. Does my hon. Friend agree, given the content of his amendment, that how the petitioning system works should more appropriately be a matter for the Procedure Committee in considering such proposals? Will he press his amendment to a vote or will he withdraw it?

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend is a very powerful person in the House, but she does not yet have the ability to respond to a debate and to accept or not accept the proposals in my amendment. I shall listen carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s response. When he accepts most—not all—of the points in the amendment, as he no doubt will, I am sure we will be able to reach an accommodation. Somebody has to stand up and say that the House of Commons is a separate institution. The Government cannot just walk in here and set up a petition system on our behalf when we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) says, we have some excellent and expert people, who do not need to understand the software and the hardware to be in control of a petitioning system. We need to ensure that all those things are in place before we say that it sounds like a great idea to get together and run one petitioning system on behalf of two separate, distinct and independent bodies that are elements of our democracy.
	Let me move on to the particulars of my amendment. First, on the subject of Parliament’s having its own site, let me repeat that I am happy for the technology to be shared if it means we can save a little money and can get on with what we are meant to do in Parliament. I would rather that than continuing this move towards Parliament as a theme park, where the sittings of the House get in the way of tourist trips and movies being filmed—the Chamber could have been hired out this afternoon to some Hollywood film company. If we can make a little bit of money by sharing the Government’s platform and technology and can have less of the theme park stuff, we should all be happy about that and could have a little more self-respect about being a legislature.
	My second point, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, concerns Members of this House and their role in the process. It should not be
	possible, willy-nilly, for a newsroom campaign to get a debate going in the House of Commons. “What are we going to do next week with our House of Commons, lads? Let’s get a few ideas, a few headlines, a cut-out in the newspaper and a debate next week—but on what?” As with the paper petition, the process should take place through a Member of Parliament: I have to stand up at the end of business and make a little speech to get a paper petition in the bag behind the Speaker’s Chair. I own that petition. That is the way to reinforce a representative democracy, rather than have stuff coming in, willy-nilly, from people who cannot sleep, have seen something on late-night TV at 3 am and have got up a petition to try and get a debate in the House of Commons.
	I urge members of the public: use your Member of Parliament. Convince your representative. Get them to put the subject that concerns you before the House. To me, it is just as valid if one person contacts their Member of Parliament—I am thinking of the elderly lady who I met at the weekend who is trying to find an extra 40 quid so that she is not turfed out of her house because of the bedroom tax—as if somebody down in Wapping decides that we should have a debate on the increase in fuel duty, for example.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman’s argument seems in part to rest on the proposition that the petitions that have reached 100,000 signatures have somehow been generated in the newsroom of a newspaper. I have the list of 29 petitions that reached 100,000. I do not know of any, from what we know of them, that started in the newsroom of a newspaper. Which of those 29 does he think started in that way?

Graham Allen: I have not gone through the list. I am happy to go through it and write to the right hon. Gentleman if he does not have the researchers to enable him to do that job for himself. I am saying that if we introduce a system without the safeguards that I am proposing—a quasi-Government system based in the House of Commons—it will be very easy to generate petitions and put pressure on Parliament, and to put pressure on the Backbench Business Committee, and so on, to take time that would otherwise be used for purposes for which in the past we have all used our judgment.
	My judgment, returning to the lady who has to find £40 out of a very low income to remain in the house where she was born 60 years ago, is that I want to get that subject raised on the Floor of the House because I think it is very important, but some other colleagues—I alluded to the all-party parliamentary groups—for one reason or another, or as a result of one influence or another, may want a specific debate. Let us all start equally. Let us hold sacrosanct the view that the House is a place where anyone may petition, anyone may convince their Member of Parliament and anyone, ultimately, time allowing, may get a debate. We should not compromise on that.

Charles Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; I will not detain him again. We must be careful to avoid promoting the idea that it is only through petitions that the House will debate matters of interest to our constituents. Whether I agree with the substance of the debates or not, we have had debates on
	badger culling, the spare room subsidy, Europe, immigration, and so on. Those subjects and many more have been debated on the Floor of the House. It may well be that our constituents do not like the outcome of those debates, or the decisions taken at the end of them, but actually very many debates of interest to our constituents happen anyway because we are in touch with our constituents, despite what the media would try and have them believe.

Graham Allen: Indeed many of those debates, and many of the 29 listed by the Leader of the House, did not arise from a petition. They arose because Members of Parliament were very interested in the subject matter, and there is a device of tagging documents to a debate, as we have done today. We have tagged three or four reports to this debate. Is there a single Member in the Chamber who knows what those reports are? They are on the Table.

Angela Eagle: They are here in my hand.

Graham Allen: There are some very eminent Members, of course, who know absolutely everything, and that is why I always bow to their view. But similarly, in many of those 29 debates, although a petition was tagged to the subject, the petition was never even referred to in the debate. Those were the debates, actually, that Members got going, and petitions were tagged to them. If we get to a position where that is reversed—where, if there is an inference that if you can get to 100,000 signatures, there is an expectation, not that Government should find time, but that the agent of Government, the sub-office, Parliament, will have to look after those things—I can tell Members what happens next. It is that your time, as Back Benchers, starts to get squeezed out.
	If there is a petitions committee, imagine being the Chair of that petitions committee. Will you just pass the petitions through? Or will you ask, “Would my hon. Friend on the Backbench Business Committee give us a little bit of time? This is so important; I have had more than 100,000 signatures and my petitions committee thinks it is really important”? Is it likely that members of the petitions committee will go to the Government? Will they pop up at business questions and will the Leader of the House say, “Absolutely; very important. I will find you a couple of hours next week”? No, they will not. They will go to our Backbench Business Committee.
	I remind new Members that the Backbench Business Committee did not pop out of thin air. It was fought through against the wishes of the Labour party, fought through, it seems now, against some of the wishes of the governing parties. The Committee is a very precious thing and its time is very precious. It is not to be bandied about and traded to a petitions committee in order, really, to salve the conscience of the Government, who, if they are interested in specific issues, should be using the vast majority of the House’s time, which they own and control, to hold debates on them. We do not need to be manipulated into using valuable Backbench Business Committee time for Government debates.

Richard Bacon: On that point, I am interested in the subject of a petitions committee and the Scottish Parliament comes to mind.
	Would not the best role of a petitions committee, if it were working properly, be not to fight for time from the Backbench Business Committee but to sit in public, calling Ministers of the Government in front of it to account for the problems that were brought before it by petitioners, and to insist that Ministers explain to it—the petitions committee—what was going to be done to address those problems?

Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman has probably put the final nail in the coffin of a petitions committee by making it clear that Ministers should be brought before it to answer on matters that are in the Government’s, rather than Parliament’s, domain. Either that, or it may well be that the people who are members of the petitions committee will be so pliant that they will never bother to do anything like that and will just pass most of the responsibility over to the Backbench Business Committee, pretending that the job has been done, and that those petitioners have really been listened to. They do not get listened to easily. Every Member of the House knows that they have to fight for time. You have to fight for your airtime. You have to campaign. You have to really demand that something that incites you as an individual gets in front of Government. We should be extremely careful about compromising that.
	My final point was pre-empted by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, the Chair of the Procedure Committee. It is about gateways. I do not pretend to be an expert on these things, but I do know that when people log on and have a look at how they can progress a petition, it is really important that they are given good advice from the first moment, just as we are in the House. If a Member goes into the Table Office with an idea for a question, they will get some good advice about who to send it to and how to word it. The same standards should apply in the House to petitions. That is why each petition should be in the ownership of an individual Member. Rather than the petition starting with the words, “We, the petitioners, call upon Parliament to declare world peace”—or free beer for everyone—there should be a check, and advice to the effect: “Hang on a minute. You are the Member in charge. We need to get the words right and ensure that your petition is in order. Then you may go crazy and get 100,000 signatures if you can.” But if we leave things as vague and open as they are at the moment, we again do the public a disservice, because they will not know, any more than they do now, the difference between Government and Parliament.
	As the Chair of the Procedure Committee said, people need to know what other options exist. Petitioning may not be a very effective way to proceed. It may be better to write to the local Member of Parliament and get them to ask a question or appear before a Minister or write a letter to a Minister. Unless the gateways are really clear—the parliamentary gateway being very different from the Government gateway—I am afraid we are again perpetrating that deceit upon people. It would be no better than the origins of petitioning—prostrating oneself before a mediaeval monarch in the hope that they might grant a favour. I think we can do better than that.
	My hope is that if the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House respond positively, the Procedure Committee will take what is before us now
	and do a really great job on it. I say to the Chair of that Committee, directly across the Chamber, that the responsibilities are onerous. People have been kidded about e-petitions. It has been confusing. It has not been clear even to many Members of the House, let alone to members of the public. It is easy to misrepresent. He needs to clean this up, and his Committee has a job to do that. One of the best ways he can do that is to ensure that a separation between Government petitioning and parliamentary petitioning is clear in the report that he produces for the House. I wish him well.

Mark Harper: We have had a good debate. I shall say some brief words on the motions about petitions and parliamentary privilege and devote most of my remarks to the motion on programming.
	The motion on petitions is sensible. I view the word “collaborative” in the phrase “a collaborative e-petitions system” rather more favourably than does the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), as meaning the House and the Government working together. The House is not a sub-office of the Government. I prefer to think of it the other way around, with the Government being a sub-office of the House. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many discussions about this. I know that the theory of Ministers being accountable to Parliament sometimes does not work as well as it ought to, but rather than throwing it away and adopting a different model, we should all work hard to make sure that it does work properly.
	The multifaceted role of the Leader of the House as both the member of the Government responsible for the Government’s legislative programme and also—I know he takes this responsibility seriously as the Leader of the whole House—the person who has to ensure that the House functions properly is reflected in the motions tabled by him.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham North talked about the technology of the platform. The Leader of the House mentioned the Government Digital Service. When I was doing my job as Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, I worked with it on some of the individual electoral registration technology. This is one of the rare occasions when the words “Government digital service” and “Government IT” refer to positive things. It works in a modern way, producing material iteratively and on quite tight timetables. The Leader of the House is right: if we can give it a clear direction by the end of this year, we can realistically expect a good process to be up and running at the start of the next Parliament.
	Giving the Procedure Committee the responsibility to lead on doing that is sensible. It will enable Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Gentleman, to make representations to the Committee over and above what we have said today, and the Committee, as can be seen from its reports on other matters, can be trusted to reflect and balance the views across the House and come up with a sensible set of proposals. I agree with some parts of his amendment, but not all. I hope he reflects on it, does not press it to a vote, takes the content of it as an input and gives evidence, if necessary orally, to the Committee.
	Finally, let me expand a little on what I said about the difference between the Government and Parliament. I do not want two different systems to operate because I do not want the public to make representations to the Government separately from representations made through this House. I want to make sure that Ministers remain accountable to the House. When the petitions that the Leader of the House mentioned were debated in the time provided by the Backbench Business Committee, part of the point of the debate was not only that Back-Bench Members could debate it, but that a Minister had to come to the Dispatch Box, answer questions and account for the Government’s policy. That is why it is important that any petitioning system keeps the House at its centre, rather than having two separate systems. There would be nothing more confusing for the public than an e-petitions system to the Government and a separate one to the House of Commons, and the two not being connected in any way. A collaborative approach—yes, with education and a clear set of messages to the public about what the system is for, how it works and what expectations someone might have after going through the process—is very important and is more likely to improve the reputation of the House.
	I take a more optimistic view on the motion on privilege than my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) set out. Privilege is well understood by many people in various professions. We should explain what it means, rather than think about an alternative label for it. The problem is that the misunderstanding is often created deliberately by some of the hon. Gentleman’s favourite people, by the sound of it—those in newsrooms—who deliberately try to create confusion about what privilege means. We must explain what it means and we have people in the outside world who are familiar with the concept as well. It is our job to explain, as Members have ably done today, the purpose of privilege, which is to enable us to speak on behalf of our constituents without worrying about powerful interests.
	The only question that I had on the privilege motion has been answered by the Leader of the House. It was about making sure that we follow through recommendation 227 on Treasury Counsel working with the House. He made it clear that the Government would do that.
	I welcome the report on programming, which I read very carefully, and the Government’s response to it. The Leader of the House is right. This Government have worked hard to try to improve how the Report stage works. He referred to a significant number of Bills having two days on Report. I should say in passing that the Government have also done a good job of increasing the number of draft Bills brought before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has done an excellent job. In response to one of the measures debated in the earlier Standards motion on recall, his Committee scrutinised the draft Bill that I introduced and made some sensible recommendations, which may or may not be debated in the future.
	The Government have done a good job of dealing with the House. Listening to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about scrutiny and the time allowed for the Report stage of Bills, it was difficult to believe that she had something to do with the previous Government. I do not pretend that the current Government are a paragon of virtue and get absolutely everything
	right, but I remember frequent occasions when there was a single day for Report, there were a large number of amendments and we barely got through any of the groups. She did not acknowledge that anywhere in her remarks.

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Harper: Let me say one more thing, which might affect what the hon. Lady says. The sensible remarks she made about the difficult balance that has to be struck between allowing the Government to get their business and allowing scrutiny was a positive point and her tone was welcome.

Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his final remark. What I was trying to say was that there is an issue with timetabling in general. I have been in the House at the time when we had no timetabling, apart from guillotining on specific Bills. That is certainly one way of working, but it leads to 80-hour working weeks. I have experienced them; I do not know whether he would like us to go back to that. Given that we have a timetabling structure now, we have to make certain that we can get away from some of the game-playing with timetabling that leaves large swathes of legislation not discussed in the Commons. As the Minister who took through two extremely important constitutional Bills at a rapid rate, perhaps he should get his own House in order.

Mark Harper: I am glad the hon. Lady raised that. I was going to come on to those. I accept that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was taken through at something of a pace because of delivering the referendum. There is sometimes a slight cynicism in the House, with the suggestion that all Ministers do not like having things debated. When that Bill was going through, I took great pains to make sure that all the important issues were debated in the House, and they all were, even though in the debate on thresholds I had to indulge in the device of moving a Back-Bench amendment from the Government Front Bench—following the model of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—in order to ask Members to vote against it, to ensure that this House was able to take a decision and not leave it to the other place.
	Another Bill that I had some responsibility for was the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, for which we did not have that imperative. In fact, we ran out of Bill before we ran out of time, and we debated all of it fully. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who ably assisted me in taking that legislation through, and I took great pains to ensure that the House had ample time to debate all of it. I will say a little more in a minute about how I think the Government should do the timetabling.
	I also welcome the Government’s suggestion of a three-day deadline for tabling amendments, which supports what the Procedure Committee has said. I welcome the Opposition’s support for that. It will of course be challenging for Opposition Front Benchers and for Back Benchers, but I think that without it we cannot ensure that time is used more sensibly.
	Another point that I want to put on the record—I got the answer I wanted, and expected, from the Leader of the House when I asked how the Government and the usual channels would approach programming—is that I think Back Benchers can help in this regard by indicating where the focus of debate is likely to be. With the best will in the world, timetabling is an art, not a science. Having amendments tabled earlier in the process would enable their full scope to be seen by the Government and the usual channels before the supplementary programme motion is devised, so the amendments could indicate what the issues of controversy are and on which provisions debate is likely to concentrate. Even so, it is still an art, not a science. I think that it will take good will on both sides of the House to ensure that the right decisions are made on whether to allow a debate to flow or to put knives in place and manage it more tightly.
	I also think that it might be worth engaging the Chair in this process, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that there are rules about avoiding repetition and so forth, but clearly the Chair must be mindful of the need to allow a proper debate by making the proper judgments when Members step over those lines and engage in game-playing. If the House is to debate things properly and table amendments earlier, and the usual channels are going to try to ensure that that happens, it will be interesting to see whether the Chair experiments with the severity with which it imposes the rules of the House, and the extent to which Members find that agreeable, to ensure that we balance properly progress—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and this seems to me to be an opportune moment to make it clear to the House that, although he is perfectly in order and has not taken a unreasonable amount of time this afternoon, it would nevertheless be helpful if Members speaking from the Bank Benches could limit their remarks to between 10 and 15 minutes, and possibly 12 minutes. That way, everyone who wishes to speak will have an opportunity to do so.

Mark Harper: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. When putting on the record things that the Chair might wish to consider, there is always a risk of provoking the Chair, as I have just done. I can hardly complain, having invited you to do that.
	There is sometimes game-playing on the Back Benches, on both sides of the House, to try either to get something debated or to ensure that it is not debated. The Chair has quite a lot of scope, both in the selection of amendments and in enforcing the rules of debate, for ensuring that we make progress.
	My final point, and an important one—I agree with the shadow Leader of the House on this—is that this House, the elected House of Commons, should have the opportunity to debate and vote on all the important issues when legislation starts its journey through the House. Sometimes it is unavoidable that important matters have to be added to Bills in the other place, and often that is in response to issues raised in this House. Indeed, if issues are raised in this House and Ministers say that they will take them away and consider them, clearly it would be absurd for the Bill not to be amended in the other place.
	However, I think that it is important that this House does its job properly to avoid the other place using the refrain, as it frequently does—it is sometimes justified, but often not—that we do not do our job properly and that we always rely on it to do so. This House can and does do its job properly, and it does it increasingly well, for example because of the extra time that the Leader of the House often makes available for us on Report. I want to ensure that we step up to the plate and do not give the other place the opportunity to pretend that it has to do our job for us.
	I support the motions and hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will take his concerns up with the Procedure Committee, rather than pressing his amendment.

Natascha Engel: I will speak today only on e-petitions and their future. I have put my name to the motion tabled by the Leader of the House and supported by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. I am very much looking forward to explaining to the Procedure Committee our experiences and some of the background to how the e-petitions system came about.
	The way the system works now might not be perfect, but it is part of an evolution, and it is certainly a vast improvement on the system in place before, which was entirely passive. I fully understood the Government’s desire to have a petitions system in which something actually happens, in which something triggers a response so that people feel that their views are listened to.
	I think that problems have arisen from the current e-petitions system because it was imposed on this place without any consultation or debate, and certainly without a vote. The intentions were good and it was in order to introduce something quickly, but I think that, as a result, certain things have not worked as well as they ought to have done.
	I fully appreciate—although I did not realise that the numbers were so high—that 10 million people have signed an e-petition and that there are 10,000 e-petitions in total. I do not think that that equates to 10 million people who are happy with the process; it just means that 10 million have signed a petition. I will outline why I think the system as it stands is not working as well as it should be. I will write to the Procedure Committee about that and give oral evidence if it is taking it.
	I do not think that we can have a hybrid system. We have had long discussions about that. It is perfectly all right to work collaboratively to create a better system, but the problem comes first and foremost from the fact that a person is petitioning the Government but the petition ends up in Parliament if the 100,000 threshold is reached. It might be that people are not clear about the distinction between Government and Parliament. As we heard in the previous conversations about privilege, it is absolutely up to us to make people understand what the difference is. Perhaps we could even use e-petitions, changing the idea of them being simply a way of influencing Government policy. We could be very explicit that this is about educating people about how this place works and making it a piece of public engagement so that every single person who puts their name to an e-petition learns something more about how this place works in
	order to influence it better. If that is our motivation behind e-petitions, we could put together a system that really works well.
	I think that the threshold of 100,000 was chosen arbitrarily—picked out of the blue. It has actually worked out relatively well in terms of the number of e-petitions that reach 100,000 signatures, but that in itself does not mean that we should have a threshold at all. When e-petitions first came to the Backbench Business Committee, we went up to the Scottish Parliament to see its petitions system, and we were very impressed. That system was not perfect when it was first set up, but it has since evolved into something that works very well. They have a separate Committee to look at all petitions, and I urge the Procedure Committee to look at that.
	I understand perfectly well that there are arguments for having an e-petitions Committee, but I am worried that the process of petitioning Parliament by paper is withering on the vine because the e-petition system is seen as being sexier. It would be good if the Committee at least looked at that and at the pros and cons of having e-petitions and paper petitions together under one Committee.
	The Scottish system does not have a threshold and every petition is looked at, but only after it has gone through a gateway, so there is a person to whom someone can speak if they want an e-petition. We have had discussions about this. If, let us say, the House of Commons Information Office provided that gateway, someone could phone or e-mail Parliament, explain their aim and ask how best to achieve it. There may be a Select Committee inquiry at that very moment on that very issue and that person could be directed to it; it may be a matter that they should take up with their MP and they could be signposted to their MP and told when they hold surgeries; or it may be a local government matter.
	Many e-petitions that are still live on the e-petitions website could be better dealt with elsewhere and should certainly not be sitting around waiting to reach 100,000 signatures before anyone looks at them. I welcome the fact that the Government will now respond after 10,000 signatures, but we should be much more proactive about what we do.
	If something is appropriate for an e-petition, the wording could be worked on better. That is when someone’s expectations can be managed so that people do not feel that as soon as an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures it triggers not just a debate and a vote, but an instant change in the law. The website makes it very clear that that is not what it triggers, but that is the public perception and that is what damages their perception of e-petitions. Their expectations are not managed properly, and I am delighted that the Procedure Committee is taking this on.
	As we have many e-mail addresses of people who have signed e-petitions in the past, perhaps we could consider having e-consultation with them to find out what they would like to see. I do not know whether that would be possible, but it would be an interesting exercise. There is a lot of research out there, but perhaps we could commission some more to find out how satisfied people have been when they have signed e-petitions in the past.
	I welcome the fact that the motion is giving us the opportunity to take e-petitions away from the Backbench Business Committee. We have been urging that for a
	long time. Our Committee is very narrow in its focus. We are a forum for Back Benchers, not for members of the public. Back Benchers bring to us issues that are raised in their constituencies and that concern them. We always hope that they chime with the interests of people outside, but we are a Committee for and of Back Benchers; we are not an e-petition Committee.
	I welcome the fact that the whole House will have the chance not just to submit ideas and suggestions for developing an e-petition system that works properly but that, when the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has produced his report, there will be an opportunity to debate the matter and to come to a decision so that there is then a petition system that starts, is processed and finishes only in Parliament. The Government may set up their own system if they want to, but there must be a petition system for and by Parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I, too, will concentrate on petitioning, although I may say a few words on other issues. I will start with the Bill of Rights. We have heard a lot about article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but article 5 maintains that
	“it is the right of subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.”
	The right to petition is an ancient and important one, and tends to go through this House to the King or, as now, the Queen. It is not unique to this House, which is why the Lord Privy Seal is right in his proposals for a collaboration—not a Vichyesque collaboration because we will not all become quislings so “collaboration” is the right word—because the Queen in Parliament is the correct organisation or body to be petitioned.
	The Leader of the House may be modelling himself on Edward I. During the Parliament of 1305, in the reign of Edward I, there were many petitions—450. What is so interesting is that they then began to become legislation. More Members of Parliament subscribed to the petitions coming in and they ended up becoming Bills. A complaint from Simon Le Parker is the first petition that can be identified as being listed in the statutes of the realm. I mention that because petitioning is extraordinarily important in the development of our democracy. By 1316, there was a claim that Edward II was not following the procedures of his father in taking proper notice of petitions. He duly did so and petitions were dealt with and acted upon. That is how this House gets redress of grievance from the Crown.
	It is important to look at the procedure along the way. Since Parliament began to sit, constituents have come to their Members of Parliament who have then come from the counties or boroughs they represent to Westminster, or wherever Parliament was sitting, to say that something is wrong and needs to be changed. We, as Parliament, can do it through legislation, but much can be dealt with by the Crown without the need for legislation.
	That is the twofold aspect of petitioning that we are rightly bringing under one e-petitioning system. It is entirely in line with our history and proper in terms of the constitution division—the separation of powers—because there are clear and distinct roles between Parliament
	and the Crown, and Parliament and the Government. It has the chance of re-energising the petitioning process. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) in saying that paper petitioning is withering on the vine. It is still an important means for individual constituents to get a message to Parliament and through to the Government.
	E-petitioning is hugely exciting. I heard the Leader of the House say that he was congenitally relaxed. On this occasion, and perhaps rarely, I am enormously excited by what is happening with e-petitioning because 10 million people have suddenly thought that it is worth while and in their interests to engage with the political process and to say that they feel strongly about something. The carrot that is dangled in front of them is a debate in the House of Commons. How proud we should be that 10 million people think that a debate in this place is so important and could be so transformative that it is worth their while organising and signing up to petitions.
	I disagree with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) who worries about the press becoming involved or Parliament being guided too much by what people outside think. I take the opposite view. If people want to launch campaigns to highlight important major issues, we would be a pretty funny sort of Parliament if we said that we did not want to consider them because they were not organised by an hon. Member. Indeed, I would have thought that most hon. Members, with their fine politically attuned antennae, would grasp such issues and think that if their constituents were so strongly in favour of something and 20,000 people in north-east Somerset think something is a good idea, it might be in their interests to pay attention, bring it to the House and perhaps go to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for some time.

Graham Allen: I wonder how many of those 10 million people feel that they have had a good shake out of the system as it currently operates. Are not many of them, if not a large majority, having signed a petition with probably nothing arising from it other than it being tagged on to another debate, reinforced in their view of a plague on all your houses and all your parties?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman thereby makes the case for bringing petitions under this House so that we can ensure that people have a proper response that they feel meet their needs.
	Although they are not strictly petitions, hon. Members do receive e-mail campaigns. I find that when I reply to these, as I do—I reply individually to everybody who has sent in a missive—there is always a percentage who get in touch absolutely amazed that they have got a response. Indeed, some have completely forgotten that they ever signed up in the first place, are rather surprised to get a response, and wonder why I am writing to them out of the blue. Then, when I send them a copy of their original e-mail, they continue to be in a state of surprise. We need to give a response that shows that we are listening and doing something about the matter.
	Of course, our constituents understand how this works. I should rather say my constituents; I can speak only for my own, who are the most intelligent people in the world. It is well known that the people of Somerset have more brain cells than can be found in the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom put together. The
	people of Somerset know these things. As you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say the same for Bristol on this occasion. People understand that just because they are in favour of something, not everybody in the country will want it, and that the petition will not necessarily end up achieving what they want. Equally, though, they want to know that the matter has been taken seriously by the people who have the power to do something.
	Getting e-petitioning right is a tremendously exciting opportunity for the House of Commons. It can ensure that we are back at the centre of public debate, with the public knowing what is going on. I really welcome the Government’s decision to proceed along these lines. In a spirit of generosity, the system they already have is basically being handed over to the Commons free, gratis and for nothing—which is better for us in terms of the expenditure of the House. It is then up to us, as a House, to grasp it. I agree with much of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) as regards how we must deal with the implementation of petitioning to make sure that it is a House of Commons-owned process that is about holding the Government thoroughly to account.
	Let me deal briefly with a couple of other matters—first, timetabling. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is in his place, took through two constitutional Bills that I opposed at almost every turn. This gives me an opportunity to say how helpfully he always engaged with those debates, which were a model of Government ensuring that the Commons had the chance to debate things and to do so seriously. If that is what is being done by having amendments tabled earlier for Report stages, it is hugely to be welcomed. Although I disagreed with almost everything my hon. Friend said in the constitutional debates, the courtesy with which he responded was a model for Governments to follow. I am glad to have had the chance to say that properly here.
	On privilege, I am pleased that the Government are not going down the legislative route. It is better that the privilege of this House is rooted in history, is not open to challenge, and is simple and straightforward, in the straightforward language that people used in the 17th century. [Laughter.] Seventeenth-century language is much more understandable than the legislative language used today. In the 17th century, people wrote clear, straightforward, simple Bills that a layman can read. We now write legislation that is completely incomprehensible unless one is a silk. It seems to me preferable that we stick to the clarity and beauty of 17th-century English rather than confusing ourselves by allowing too many draftsmen to get involved with confusing privilege, and potentially undermining it. The one thing we do not want is learned judges interfering in the procedures of this House, and avoiding legislation is therefore greatly to be welcomed.
	I am, for once, at one with the Government in all that they are trying to do, and I am grateful for what they are trying to do. As the Lord Privy Seal begins to think about where he may go for the brief holiday that we have during Prorogation—perhaps to Weston-super-Mare or another suitable beach—he can go a happy man thinking how well the petitioning system will do in the next and future Sessions of Parliament.

Helen Goodman: I want to confine my remarks to motion 5 on programming. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), with whom I enjoyed serving on the Procedure Committee. I am pleased that he took us back to the 1300s, because he has shown the context in which we can understand the glacial pace at which the Leader of the House seems to want to proceed in making changes to programming.
	When we are thinking about improving the processes of this House, it is really important that we understand the poor reputation that the House has at the moment and has had previously. Maybe we have turned a corner, but maybe not. It is incumbent on all of us to show that this House is responsive, effective and understands what the public expect of us.
	Broadly speaking, the House has three functions, all of which have been discussed today: holding the Government to account; raising matters of general concern and supporting campaigns; and legislating. Legislating is the one thing that only we can do. The media take part in holding the Government to account, and all citizens are involved with campaigning, but legislation is the one thing that is solely our responsibility, and we should therefore do it as well as possible. It is appalling that things get on to the statute book without any debate in this Chamber, but that is what has been happening. I do not want to take part in a partisan debate on this. From my experience in this Parliament and the previous Parliament, things were not altogether as they might have been in the previous Parliament.
	In my view, the efforts that the Leader of the House has made to extend the time on Report do not do the business. We need a system that works so that we are not reliant on the good will of whoever happens to hold the office of Leader of the House and be in charge of timetabling business. The basic problem is that because there is a fixed time for amendments on Report, if there are too many groups, the early groups are debated and the later groups are not debated. This creates two problems. First, sometimes amendments tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition or by Back Benchers do not get debated at all, so new ideas and possibilities are not floated. Secondly, because of our practice of voting on all the amendments, when the Government get their legislation through, the Government amendments are put on to the statute book without any discussion. Across the House, people are appalled by this, and if the public knew about it, they too would be appalled. That is what we need to address.
	The Committee that produced the major report on this House, the Wright report, was particularly concerned about the fact that Back Benchers’ opinions are not voiced. The evidence that the Procedure Committee gathered about which Government amendments are put on the statute book without debate reflects a more serious problem. In the Session that we looked at, 28 clauses were put on to the statute book without any debate in this House. That is the equivalent of a small Bill; it is quite a substantial amount of legislation. Some of the subject matter might not have been so exciting, and in some cases, had there been an opportunity, it might have taken only 10 minutes to debate, but that is not true of all of it.
	The extradition provisions were not discussed in this Chamber. Whichever view one takes—whether for or against the legislation—it is absolutely clear that those provisions were highly controversial. Such was their significance that it would have been right to discuss them properly. The problem did not begin on 5 May 2010. It has been going on for some time and we need to address it.
	The Clerks of the Procedure Committee came up with an excellent way of dealing with the problem. It was suggested that if amendments could be tabled earlier, the Chair would have more time to produce a schedule for the day, and that the time given for debate on Report could be divided in proportion to the number of groups of amendments so that every group could be debated. Members have always been dependent on the excellent work of the Clerks in getting into the nitty-gritty and making a reality of our vaguer aspirations, and the Procedure Committee could not have produced a report as good as its third report without their help.
	I made a tactical error because, having produced that third report, which suggested a solution to the problem, I resigned from the Procedure Committee. That was obviously a mistake, because I resigned before we received the Government’s response and I was not involved in the sixth report. The resistance of the Leader of the House to the suggestion that every single group of amendments should be debated on Report takes the heart out of the matter. We have the disadvantages of tabling amendments earlier, without the advantages of being confident that every single group will be debated, which was the whole object of the report.
	If we are taking the glacial approach that has been taken over seven centuries towards the issue, I am prepared to go along with the motion; we have part of what we wanted, but not all of it. I am not confident, however, that in future we will feel that all parts of every Bill will have been debated, and we will have the disadvantage of having to do everything earlier.

Charles Walker: May I say to the hon. Lady, before she gets too depressed, that we have reached the shoulder of the mountain, but the summit remains to be conquered?

Helen Goodman: I am glad that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who chairs it most ably, is showing once again his political nous in his attempts to corral us. I hope he is right and that, after this experiment, the Procedure Committee will be able to return to matter and see whether it has achieved its purpose. If not, I hope not only that the experiment will result in a permanent change to Standing Orders, but that all of the third report’s proposals will be fully implemented.

Mark Harper: My intervention is likely to be more prosaic and not as poetic as that of my hon. Friend the Chair of the Procedure Committee. Having read the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations, I am not as depressed as the hon. Lady, because all it said was that they did not agree with the suggestion for a proportionate and rigid allocation of time. They said they wanted to be able to exercise judgment on how to allocate the time and that a
	proportionate model would be complex and unwieldy. The sense I got from the Government’s response is that they want every group of amendments and all the major issues to be debated; they just do not want to do it in the mechanical way suggested by the Committee’s report.

Helen Goodman: We will hear whether that was the intention when the Deputy Leader of the House winds up the debate. What the Government actually said was this:
	“The Chair would have to make rapid calculations on the number of minutes available per group in response to the progress of the...business”,
	as if the Chair is not capable of doing some straightforward arithmetic. I know that education standards in this country are not what they ought to be, but I am absolutely confident that the Chair, supported, of course, by the Clerks, would be able to do that. The Government’s response also said that there is no evidence of a “systemic problem”, but there is a systemic problem, which is precisely why it is worth changing the rules of the game.

David Heath: The systemic problem is not purely on the Government’s side, whichever party is in government or in opposition. As long as an Opposition’s main weapon of debate is seen to be the ability to delay and prolong debate rather then make points succinctly, we will never have a rational distribution of time in this House.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. I have said that I do not think that the fault lies on the Government side or the Opposition side of the House. If the time were divided in proportion, we would be confident that every group of amendments would be debated. Without that, things will get squeezed out and there will be maximum scope for playing games.
	It is obvious that, in order for the House to work well, we need sensible rules and a degree of co-operation. That requires a constructive approach from the Government and the Opposition and responsible people in the Chair who are interested in facilitating debate. If we had those things and all the right rules, we would be able to do it. I simply do not understand why the Leader of the House has resisted the proposal in the third report that would provide the best guarantee of debating every group of amendments.
	I enjoyed serving on the Procedure Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who showed his skill on many occasions. I am prepared to take his advice once again and not to push the motion on programming to a vote. We should, however, return to the issue in a year’s time and make sure that we absolutely lock it in.

John Hemming: I do not intend to go back to the 1300s, but I do intend to go back to the 1600s. In 1624, the master of the felt-makers was arrested while attending the House to proffer a petition. The House considered that he had the protection of the House to proffer the petition and established a committee to consider whether the arrest itself was a breach of privilege. In 1696, Thomas Kemp and other Hackney coachmen were arrested as a consequence of
	proceedings by Richard Gee, a commissioner of Hackney coaches. The House concluded that Mr Gee was guilty of a breach of privilege and a high misdemeanour and that he was to be imprisoned by the Serjeant. In 1699, John Kelly was imprisoned in consequence of having given Members an abstract of several articles against the commissioners of victualling. That was referred to the Privileges Committee. The fact that people used to be imprisoned for petitioning Parliament shows how important petitions were.
	To return to the current day, about a month ago the London borough of Redbridge was upset that a 94-year-old woman wanted to petition Parliament. Sadly, before it could get an injunction to stop her petitioning Parliament, she did so and the petition is now bagged behind Mr Speaker’s Chair and in Hansard. Obviously, there are still issues with regard to petitioning Parliament.
	One of my fundamental principles in politics is that people have a right to complain to Members of Parliament. An issue about schools in my constituency and others in Birmingham has been debated. It is a particular principle of mine that nobody should be frightened to speak to me. There is no question but that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) did excellent work, with the support of the Business Secretary, in getting a statutory instrument through that stated that disclosures to Members of Parliament are protected disclosures for the purposes of employment tribunals. I have asked the schools to put in their staff room a copy of the Library briefing saying that a disclosure to a Member of Parliament is a protected disclosure, and they have both agreed to do so. The staff at those schools can therefore have absolute certainty that they are protected, from the perspective of employment law, in talking to Members of Parliament.
	Parliament should go further and do what it used to do in the 1600s, because it used to protect people’s right to complain to Members of Parliament. In our debates, that is what privilege is about. It is about the people of this country being able to use Parliament to redress all grievances. Although the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) referred in his excellent speech to article 5 of the Bill of Rights, he did not mention article 13, which defines one function of Parliament as the redress of all grievances. However, if we do not know what people’s grievances are, how can we redress them? Through parliamentary jurisdiction, Parliament has powers to protect people when they talk to Members of Parliament. I have two live cases: in one, somebody has recently been injuncted in an attempt to stop them talking to me; in the other—I have only just got the e-mail on my phone—somebody is frightened that they might face litigation if they petition Parliament.
	There is an issue about e-petitions, which are not proceedings in Parliament, although paper petitions are. I agree with the Government motion, which is sensible. I am a member of both the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee, and I congratulate both the Chairs on their able work. I agree that e-petitions need to be looked at, and I disagree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which would fetter the Procedure Committee’s discretion. Although I accept some of the amendment’s content, if it is pushed to a vote, I will oppose it.
	As a House, we must emphasise that parliamentary privilege is a form of privilege akin to absolute privilege,
	qualified privilege and legal professional privilege, all of which are about protecting people’s rights. Parliamentary privilege is about protecting our citizens’ or constituents’ rights to complain to us, with those complaints being addressed in some part or other of the system. Frankly, we should explain that fact, rather than change the name, because privilege has an important function. How else can people ask somebody to stand up on their behalf to complain about what has happened to them without fearing that they will be imprisoned?
	Lots of things still go wrong in this country. Hon. Members will be aware that I have often complained about people being intimidated in an attempt to stop them talking to me. Normally, it does not work; sometimes it does. Obviously, I do not know the circumstances when intimidation has worked in that way, because the people stop talking to me. We need to protect people’s rights to talk to us.

Richard Bacon: I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. If I had to explain privilege, I would describe it as the unfettered right of Members to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents. That is the simplest way to describe it. Does he not think that it is extraordinary for an English judge ever to believe that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for them to name a Member of Parliament as a person to whom a constituent should not speak, as has happened in an injunction?

John Hemming: Indeed; it is extraordinary for a judge to go so far, but there has been some pulling back from that position. The Neuberger committee considering the issue of super-injunctions concluded that it is not possible for an injunction to prevent people from talking to Members of Parliament. However, not everybody has read the Neuberger committee’s report. I am the sort of sad person who reads judgments, committee reports and the like, but most people who are told that they will be imprisoned if they talk to an MP believe that that is true—in fact, it is not true—and that, sadly, guides what they do.
	A very serious concern is therefore a live one in 2014. Even if petitioning has gone on since the 1300s, it is a live concern today. Although the work of the right hon. Member for Haltem and Howdenprice or whatever it is—[Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for not getting his constituency name right. Notwithstanding the complexities of his constituency name, his work is excellent. That work has gone part of the way, but we need to go further. It is a job for Mr Speaker through referring issues to the Privileges Committee, because we need to stand up for our constituents’ rights to talk to us.
	On timetabling on Report, I want to make two points. The first is that procedure is how one exercises power and is therefore crucial. From time to time, all Governments want to use procedure to prevent difficult votes from happening. I do not think that Governments are frightened so much about debates as about votes in which difficult Members—perhaps like me—will not necessarily vote with the Government, so if they can avoid such votes, all the better. That will always be a difficulty, although we are making useful progress in the form of the motion on programming before us.
	The second point about process is one that people should be aware of when they consider votes in Public Bill Committees and whether amendments should be made in the Commons or in the other place. The reality is that for amendments to be accepted by the Government, there has to be a consultation process throughout Whitehall, which is sensible, but takes a certain time. If an amendment is tabled in a Public Bill Committee to be voted on three days later, the consultation process will not have happened and the Government are not therefore in a position to agree to it. That is why many amendments, however well argued, are not generally accepted until they appear again in the other place. The Procedure Committee has suggested using the recommittal process, and I believe that there are mechanisms to facilitate the Government’s accepting amendments in this place rather than the other place. We must, however, take into account the real and realistic requirements for a process of consultation, and the fact that a vote in a Public Bill Committee at short notice is insufficient. In other words, we are making glacial progress, although in some areas we should assert ourselves, as Members did in the 1600s.

Richard Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), for whom I have a great deal of respect. I do not plan to speak at length, and I have already made my primary point about parliamentary privilege in an intervention. Privilege—we should not seek to re-label it, but we should explain it—is the unfettered right of Members of Parliament to speak up on behalf of their constituents without any fear of the consequences, and it includes the unfettered right of people to go to their Members of Parliament so that that can take place.
	I want to dwell on what happens to petitions. I recently re-read the obituary of Lord St John of Fawsley in The Guardian on 5 March 2012, which I recommend to anybody who wants a bit of entertainment on a wet Thursday afternoon. I particularly recommend my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to read it. The first paragraph states that Lord St John of Fawsley
	“was as vivid a personality as politics can bear.”
	I do not think that I am doing my right hon. Friend an injustice if I say that people have not often said that of him, but he has an opportunity to go down in history every bit as significantly as Lord St John of Fawsley.
	The issue of petitions cuts to the quick. As hon. Members have said, the right to petition goes back a long way and it is part of why we are here. Indeed, we might say the same about the English courts. The whole development of English administrative law was about the process of seeking remedy for specific grievances. That is how we have grown as a polity during the past 1,000 years.
	What interests me is not so much whether there is an “e” in front of the word “petition”. I was particularly intrigued and delighted by the excitement my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) showed for technology—it seems slightly out of place with his normal demeanour and with his area of expertise, which usually dates back several
	centuries—and that was interesting to witness. However petitions end up in Parliament, it is what is done with them that really matters.
	I know that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—he is rushing back to his place—is at an early stage of thinking about these issues. I encourage the Leader of the House, too, to think about what happens to petitions next. It seems to me that, later in the process, we should have a petitions Committee that has real teeth and before which Ministers have to appear.
	For example, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) presented a petition about Alphonso mangos last night. He had only 329 signatures because he had only since the middle of last week to arrange his petition. The petitioners included significant street traders and representatives of traders in his constituency and elsewhere. That is an issue that will affect many people, that will damage many businesses to the tune of many millions of pounds and that outrages many people.
	It ought to be possible for such issues to be addressed quickly in Parliament, not only through a debate but in Committee. If a Committee member does not like the answer that they receive from a member of the Executive, they should be able to press them further and harder to answer the question again and again until they get the answer that they want. They should be able to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, as it were, until they get a sense of what action they will take. In the case of the Alphonso mangos, that will be the pressure that they will put on Brussels to ensure that there is a quick solution.
	Having a petitions Committee with teeth could transform the level of respect for this House among members of the public. They should feel that when they bring their grievances and concerns here, there is a swift mechanism for dealing with them that does not relate only to the number of people who have petitioned. I agree on that point with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). The number of people who petition should not be the only criterion. A small number of petitioners could be just as important or even more important. That ought to be down to the judgment of Members of the House and members of Committees, such as a putative petitions Committee. In that way, we can retain and strengthen the respect with which Members of Parliament are viewed.

Thomas Docherty: It is a pleasure to wind up this debate.
	I pay tribute to members of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and the Procedure Committee for their service in considering a range of important parliamentary matters. In particular, I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who manages, with good grace and good humour, a wide range of views across that Select Committee, many of which are held with passion. He has skilfully steered the Government towards a sensible conclusion. Today, we thank him for his service.
	The Leader of the House came slightly unstuck when explaining the motion on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I think that it is fair to say that he attempted to skip over
	paragraph 225 of the report. I note that the former Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), is in his place. Paragraph 225 said that the Government’s original thinking was, to put it charitably, unnecessary. There are less nice things that could be said about it. What the Joint Committee said in paragraphs 226 and 227 was that the solution, if it was not to be legislation, would be to have the debate that we are having today and the debate that was led by the noble Lord Brabazon in the other place.
	I note that the Deputy Leader of the House was not in his place when the shadow Leader of the House was at the Dispatch Box. In case he has not been briefed on her speech, she pressed the Government on the so-called Hamilton law. The Joint Committee was absolutely clear that that should be repealed. We support that. I understand that there might be an opportunity to deal with that next Wednesday, time allowing, ironically. Will the Government confirm that they will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the Opposition, so that we can take that iniquitous piece of legislation off the statute book?
	There was a range of excellent contributions on privilege. It is good to see the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) joining the ranks of parliamentary experts on the Back Benches, if only temporarily. He explained better than most what privilege is. He was right that we should all do more to explain to the public and to those who watch our proceedings what privilege is, rather than rewriting it in a more modern fashion.
	Speaking of a modern fashion, I turn to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I am sorry that he is temporarily not in his place. He has been described previously as a Victorian figure. It turns out that the observers who dubbed him that were out by two royal dynasties at least. He has been a driving force in the Procedure Committee.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset made some valid points about privilege, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), another survivor of the Procedure Committee, who provided us with a good run through the history of the links between petitioning and privilege. He made an incredibly interesting point about privilege and e-petitions. Will the Deputy Leader of the House answer the following straightforward question? Privilege obviously extends to e-petitions that have been considered by the Backbench Business Committee or debated in Westminster Hall. However, if the Parliament website hosts an e-petition that has not yet reached 100,000 e-signatures, do the Government believe that by hosting it, Parliament has extended privilege to the e-petition? If the Deputy Leader of the House does not have the answer to that important question to hand and is yet to be inspired, it would be helpful if he wrote to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and I, and placed the answer in the Library.
	On Standing Order No. 33, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) queried the Opposition’s commitment to blocking the gagging attempt by the Government. Obviously, Hansard does not record who shouts, “Object!”, but my recollection is that one Member on each side of the House shouted in objection. I draw his attention to the names that appeared after that of
	the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on the counter-proposal. They included the names of the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, the shadow Leader of the House and all the Labour members of the Procedure Committee, including me. There is no doubt that we are not Johnny or Jane-come-latelies. We were clear from the start that this was an attempt by the Government to gag parliamentary democracy and speech. We welcome the Government’s reflection on the mood of Parliament.
	It was right for Members to highlight the fact that Standing Order No. 33 assumes that the political make-up is that of a two-major-party system. We cannot predict what the future holds, but that means that it does not reflect the reality of this Parliament. We have, therefore, been clear that we do not support it.
	On programming, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean acknowledged that he took the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 through at “a pace”. I can only assume that he was thinking of the pace of Usain Bolt. I want to remind him gently of how little time was spent on Lords amendments. When the Government came back from the House of Lords with the proposal to create two seats for the Isle of Wight, but not to create two seats for Anglesey, less than an hour of debate was provided by the Government for the contributions from the two Front Benches and the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). Perhaps, on reflection, that was not the finest hour of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean in upholding parliamentary democracy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is right that legislation is the sole responsibility of Parliament. I praise her for being the main driver of the programming inquiry. She showed tenacity and vigour in hounding the Government to make the process fairer. The report is testimony to her hard work.
	Finally, on e-petitions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean argued for a single system to ensure that Ministers are held to account. He said, rightly, that we should not create further confusion for the public. The Procedure Committee drew attention to the concern that the e-petitions system is misleading because it refers to an e-petition as an easy way to influence Government. I am not sure that many Members of Parliament think that being in Parliament is an easy way to influence Government. We therefore believe that further work needs to be done to ensure that the public understand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) estimates that 10 million people have signed petitions. That is an impressive number, but I wonder whether, as with some popular television shows, the number of individuals who have taken part is not quite the headline figure. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House corrects me and says that the figure refers to 10 million individual people and not the same people signing several petitions.

Andrew Lansley: The figure is 11.8 million.

Thomas Docherty: I am happy to be corrected. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire made an important point about gathering evidence from those people. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will say in his response whether the Government
	are considering contacting those who have previously e-petitioned them to ask for their feedback on the matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made some interesting points, to which I am sure the Procedure Committee will give due consideration. However, the amendment is premature, so I urge him not to press it today and to make a written and perhaps oral submission to the Committee in the near future.
	It has been a very good debate and we have had a great history lesson as well as considering some key issues about parliamentary democracy. The Opposition support the motions.

Tom Brake: Some interesting and substantive contributions have been made to the debate this afternoon by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), as well as interventions from several Members. I hope to comment on at least some of the more specific points.
	I welcome the Opposition’s support for the process that has been outlined for e-petitions and the co-operation of the Procedure Committee and others in taking the matter forward with the Government. However, I regret that the hon. Member for Nottingham North appears reluctant to engage with his colleagues, including those who are members of the Government, on designing a system that meets the interests of both parties and, even more important, those of petitioners.
	One of the main problems with having two petition systems, which the hon. Gentleman advocates, is the difficulty for petitioners in trying to identify which of the two they should use and, indeed, what happens when they request one thing through one route, which they also need to achieve through the other route. I will not engage with the detail of the amendment—that is for the Procedure Committee to consider in concert with others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feed his ideas into that Committee.
	The Government support some aspects of the amendment and, indeed, some things can already be done. For example, the provision that
	“any hon. Member should be able to propose an e-petition for debate”
	can already happen. That also applies to the provision that,
	“the Backbench Business Committee should allocate time on Mondays in Westminster Hall for debates arising from e-petitions”.
	There are, therefore, matters on which we agree. However, there are others, particularly the suggestion of setting up a completely separate e-petition site, that the Government do not support. However, as I said, this is
	a joint exercise and joint system, and further discussion with colleagues is required before trying to identify the detail.
	The intention is to enable the House to hold the Government to account in responding to petitions, and to give it greater control over how they are treated and debated here. Given the nature of our debate, I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will not press the amendment. If the House agrees to the motion, the Leader of the House will be in a position to meet the Procedure Committee to begin discussions on the new system. We look forward to proposals emerging later in the year.
	On programming, I am grateful for the support for the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I note the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, based on his experience, and the comments about the effect of the new deadline and how the Chair will apply it. The new deadline of three days for amendments on Report will apply from the start of the next Session, and we look forward to the Procedure Committee’s review before the end of the Parliament.
	On Standing Order No. 33, if the House agrees to the Standing Order changes, they will be in force for the debate on the Gracious Speech at the start of the next Session. Members will doubtless wish to reflect on how well they work after that debate.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House posed a question on programming, about whether the Government would consider an earlier deadline of an extra day so that the House has a chance to see the Government’s thinking on Government amendments.

Tom Brake: The difficulty with that is that it would effectively create two classes of Members—one required to provide more and another required to provide less notice. That presents problems.
	I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to intervene about the couple of other points that were raised while I was temporarily out of the Chamber. He will be pleased to know that I got inspiration even while not within these Chamber walls. On defamation, the shadow Leader of the House called on the Government to support an amendment to the Deregulation Bill to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. The Government have previously made it clear that they support the repeal and will act when a legislative opportunity arises. I am pleased to say that one such opportunity will arise next week.
	The shadow Deputy Leader of the House made a point about e-petitions and privilege. That is a matter that the Procedure Committee could consider. There may be implications depending on the decisions reached—for example, on whether a petitions Committee considers all petitions, potentially accepting them as evidence. Once the system is designed, clarity on that will be important.
	We have had a focused and concise debate on these House issues, and I hope that we are now in a position to move forward.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Allen, do you want to move your motion formally?

Graham Allen: No.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House supports the establishment, at the start of the next Parliament, of a collaborative e-petitions system, which enables members of the public to petition the House of Commons and press for action from Government; and calls on the Procedure Committee to work with the Government and other interested parties on the development of detailed proposals.

Parliamentary Privilege

Resolved,
	That, in light of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 226 and 227 of the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 100, this House resolves that legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on the activities of the House should in future contain express provision to this effect.—(Mr Lansley.)

Programming

Resolved,
	That this House approves the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in its Sixth Report of 2013-14, Programming: proposal for a trial of new arrangements for the tabling of amendments to bills at report stage, HC 1220, that a trial should take place for the course of the 2014-15 Session of a three day deadline for the tabling of amendments and new clauses/schedules at report stage of all programmed bills.—(Mr Charles Walker.)

Calling of Amendments at the end of Debate (Amendments to Standing Orders)

Ordered,
	That Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at the end of debate) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order made:
	‘Amendments to address in answer to the Queen’s Speech
	(1) In respect of a motion for an address in answer to Her Majesty’s Speech, the Speaker may select up to four amendments of which notice has been given.
	(2) No amendment may be selected before the penultimate day of the debate on such a motion.
	(3) If, on the last day on which such a motion is debated in the House, an amendment to it proposed by the Leader of the Opposition shall have been disposed of at or after the expiration of the time for opposed business, any further amendments selected by the Speaker may thereupon be moved, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.’.—(Mr Lansley.)

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Rwandan Genocide

Dawn Primarolo: I believe that it is Mr Newmark’s birthday, so may I wish him many happy returns of the day? I call him to move the motion.

Brooks Newmark: I beg to move,
	That this House commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, when over the course of a 100-day period in 1994 at least 800,000 Rwandans were murdered; and calls on the Government to reinforce its commitment to the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and to working within the UN to promote international justice and to avoid mass atrocities which are still committed across the globe today.
	I am delighted to have the opportunity, on my birthday, to open today’s debate marking the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, a 100-day period in 1994. That appalling episode left almost 1 million dead, 3 million refugees, a region riddled with insecurity, and a country and a people struggling to comprehend the enormity of the horrors inflicted on them.
	To all the Tutsis and moderate Hutus who died, 7 April 1994 marked the beginning of 100 days of hell—100 days of rape, torture, murder and unspeakable horrors. It was the beginning of 100 days that took nearly 1 million lives. For those who bore witness to Rwanda’s genocide, it was a time that humanity seemed to forget. The Rwandan genocide saw wives become widows and children become orphans. Roughly three quarters of the Tutsi population were eliminated, and Rwanda suffered greatly. Attackers burned down churches with hundreds or thousands of Tutsis inside and slaughtered their victims with machetes. Hundreds of mass graves were dug across the country to bury the victims of what was a long-planned killing spree.
	As Linda Melvern, the journalist and author, said in one of the Committee Rooms of the House on 26 March to those of us commemorating the genocide:
	“Here was the direst of all human situations. The crime of genocide—the intent to destroy a human group…There were no sealed trains or secluded camps in Rwanda. A planned and political campaign, the genocide of the Tutsi took place in broad daylight.”
	On the 20th anniversary of the genocide, people are talking again of tribes in Rwanda—the Hutu tribe, the Tutsi tribe—but it is important to remember that the Hutus and Tutsis were the same before colonial rule created a divide. They lived in the same space on the same hills, spoke the same language, had the same religion and often intermarried. The only difference was a superficial judgment on appearance and occupation. In 1994, Rwanda was 85% Hutu, 14% Tutsi and 1% Twa.
	As many Members will know, the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide came about on 6 April 1994, when President Juvénal Habyarimana was killed when his plane was shot down as it came in to land at Kigali airport. Immediately, a pre-planned policy of extermination of all Tutsis was triggered, and throughout the entire country, right down to every village, Hutus turned on
	their Tutsi neighbours and slaughtered them. The Hutus who attempted to intervene or prevent the violence were also killed.
	The international community should have responded to the Rwandan genocide, but in 1994 it collectively failed to do anything to help the Rwandan people in their hour of need. The Americans had been traumatised by the “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia the previous October, making the Clinton Administration unwilling to intervene, especially in Africa. Regrettably, Britain did nothing, having no interest in a former Belgian colony. France, much to its shame, continued to support the interim Rwandan Government even after it became clear that they were driving the planned genocide.
	The international response to the Rwandan genocide was woeful, as was the lack of action by the United Nations. There were dreadful misreadings of what was happening, and the plight of the Tutsis was ignored, with many people refusing to acknowledge that the events taking place were a genocide of the Tutsis. Indeed, not one Government called on the perpetrators to stop the genocide. Not one UN member state severed diplomatic ties. Not one Government called for the representative of the interim Rwandan Government to be suspended from the chamber of the UN. The international community turned its back on Rwanda and left the Tutsi people to their fate.

Bob Stewart: One real problem at the time was the fact that the UN international assistance mission for Rwanda was there under a chapter VI mandate from the Security Council—peacekeeping rather than peace enforcement—and had really rotten rules of engagement. No one in the Security Council was prepared to increase the potency of those peacekeepers on the ground. More than that, as my hon. Friend knows, the Belgians withdrew their paratroopers and left the general there absolutely alone, with 246 people.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. Anybody who has seen the film “Shooting Dogs” will know the frustrations that the general felt at the lack of support and the lack of acknowledgment that a genocide was taking place. The title “Shooting Dogs” was because the peacekeepers could shoot dogs, since they might eat dead bodies or attack people, but could not shoot individuals who were slaughtering the Tutsis right in front of them.
	It is easy for us to say, “It must never happen again”, but it may happen at any moment, and perhaps already is in Syria, the Central African Republic and north-eastern Nigeria—places where the wrong ID card or recognition of one’s tribe can still carry a death sentence. I wish to take this opportunity to reflect on not only the lessons and legacies of the genocide itself but the steps taken by the international community to ensure that it never happens again and by Rwanda in its transition to a peaceful and more prosperous future.
	The horrific events that transpired during the Rwandan genocide, and later in Srebrenica, served as the impetus for all UN member states to commit unanimously at the 2005 world summit to the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. At the world summit,
	states acknowledged that the world should no longer tolerate political indifference and inaction, whenever and wherever populations face an imminent risk of mass atrocity crimes. By committing to the responsibility to protect, known as R2P, countries committed to protecting populations at risk of crimes such as the one experienced in Rwanda in 1994.
	Since 2005, UN member states have taken important steps to strengthen the responsibility to protect at both international and domestic level. Those initiatives include the creation of a global network of focal points and the development of domestic and regional capacities to prevent genocide and other mass atrocity crimes. Since 2011, the UN Security Council has also invoked R2P when authorising measures to protect civilians in Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, the Central African Republic, Libya, South Sudan and elsewhere, although I believe that today we are once again falling short of our responsibility to protect in Syria. Preventing mass atrocity crimes is a responsibility that we must all bear and a principle for which we should all work. States should continue to build support for R2P and ensure that it is consistently and effectively implemented in practice.
	The UK has also taken steps to reduce international war crimes and protect civilians. The Foreign Secretary’s work in calling for an end to rape as a weapon of war is highly necessary and important. In June he will ask 140 nations to write action against sexual violence into military training and doctrine. If that vital piece of work had been in place 20 years ago, perhaps many women and girls would have been saved from this cruel weapon of war. We need to continue to work to ensure that the horrific events in Rwanda do not unfold elsewhere in the future.
	Dr Simon Adams, executive director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, noted that the best way to honour the memory of those murdered in 1994 is to build a world where the international community permits no people to stand alone when threatened by genocide. The 20th commemoration of the Rwandan genocide compels us to reflect, but also to act and uphold our collective responsibility to protect.
	I believe that the UK will continue to fight to ensure that the events of 7 April to 17 July 1994 do not recur, and I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), took time to attend commemorations in Kigali to mark the 20th anniversary of the genocide. It is important that we remember the terrible events of 1994 and as a nation pay tribute to the victims.
	Over the past 20 years, Rwanda’s development has been truly astonishing, and the UK has played a leading role in helping to transform it from a failed war-torn state into a stable and growing economy. In particular, the UK has done much to help the country’s poorest people lift themselves out of poverty over the past two decades. Britain is helping thousands of children across Rwanda to get an education, giving them the chance of a better future. We are helping more than half a million people to get a job so that they can lift themselves out of poverty. We are also helping thousands of families to ensure that they have enough food to eat to lead healthier, happier lives.
	The UK is supporting a programme in Rwanda to help build peace and reconciliation following the genocide. We are helping to teach schoolchildren how they can become ambassadors for peace in their country, and funding vital research into how we can prevent genocide from happening again. To commemorate the genocide, the Department for International Development provided £2.5 million to support the Aegis Trust’s work in upgrading the Kigali genocide memorial and helping communities to reconcile their differences. Over the next three years, Britain’s support will help to establish a genocide archive and fund new research on how to prevent future genocide, and ensure that the event of the genocide is stored and made more accessible, including with online documentation from the gacaca courts. Finally, Aegis will undertake research on preventing genocide, and will provide education about it and its causes to Rwandan schoolchildren, communities and youth leaders.
	Since I first visited Rwanda in 2007, I have seen an enormous amount of progress. The overriding feeling that I get every time I visit the country is of a people wanting to move onwards and upwards to a better future. Indeed, I am making my own small contribution to Rwanda by setting up my own charity, A Partner in Education, and building a primary school in Kigali called Umubano, which means togetherness in Kinyarwandan. The school was built two years ago and currently educates 175 children, including many vulnerable children from poor backgrounds. Rwanda has few natural resources, and therefore its future lies in its children. Through my school, I am delighted to make my own small contribution to Rwanda’s future.
	As we mark the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, we owe it not only to the victims of the 1994 genocide, but to all victims of genocide to remain vigilant, proactive, and to remember the sacrifice that they never deserved to make. To mark the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda we should say: never again.
	I conclude by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for taking me to Rwanda in 2007 on project Umubano—a Conservative party initiative that has worked on a variety of social action projects over the past seven years. That early introduction to Rwanda has led to a love of the country and its people, and a lifetime commitment to support its future development.
	I thank my team, both past and present, at A Partner in Education, for all they have done and continue to do, including Kitty Llewellyn, Alvin Mihigo, Pippa Richards—who shares a birthday with me today—Stephen Bayley, Kate Hanon, Emily Gilkinson and Angie Kotler. I also thank SURF, the survivors charity, and the Aegis Trust, for their work in ensuring that future generations learn the lessons of the terrible event of 1994. I thank my constituent, Hayley Boatwright, for her input into this speech, and finally I thank Louise Mushikiwabo, Rwanda’s Foreign Minister, for her friendship and support for my endeavours to give Rwanda a better future.

Graham Jones: Last summer I visited Rwanda, and I was fortunate enough to go back in March and April this year. To be frank, I was unsure of what I would see. The country obviously has a terrible past, and it sits in the heart of Africa with no natural resources. The visit was to look at peace and
	reconciliation, and to see the commemorations of the 20th anniversary and the transformation that has taken place. During my visit I was fortunate enough to meet the President and executive members of the Administration, regional governors, members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, chief executives of state-owned industries, civil society, the archbishop and bishops of all the districts, ordinary people, non-governmental organisations and our own Foreign Office personnel—a wide range of people. It was informative to speak to all those people and get a grasp of the country. That is what brings me to this debate.
	It is clear that the United Kingdom and Rwanda have a special relationship. When speaking to all those people, they would say that the role of the BBC in exposing the genocide, when no help was on offer, is something for which they remember Britain. They also point to the very generous budget support from UK aid that has allowed the Rwandan Government and Rwandan people to rebuild their country. I think that that sets the UK apart from other countries in the eyes of Rwanda.
	I do not wish to go over the history, but I will reflect on what I saw: the impact of the genocide, the passage from the genocide to the present, the importance of Rwanda politically and economically in Africa, and the dilemma of balancing civil and human rights with development.
	The development of Rwanda has been remarkable. On landing, visitors are struck by the sight of clean streets, beautiful lush greenery and manicured gardens. There is not a broken street light in sight. Visitors have to remind themselves that this is Africa. There is impressive infrastructure, with no broken pavements or potholes in sight. Well-dressed Rwandans go about their affairs with apparent purpose. There is European-standard housing in Kigali and modern housing throughout the country. Electricity and roads have been rolled out. The level of development is impressive.

Angus MacNeil: This is obviously a very serious subject and the matters to which the hon. Gentleman is alluding are very interesting. Rwanda is a mountainous country, but the mobile phone signals there are better than they are in the highlands of Scotland.

Graham Jones: I do visit Scotland, but I am not an expert on the highlands. There was some trouble with mobile signals in Rwanda—it is hilly—but I was delighted to hear that the Rwandan Government, alongside the Korean Government, are looking to resolve that with huge investment in broadband and mobile infrastructure.
	The past seems to have been erased from the physical fabric of the country. We are not left with the impression that such an horrific genocide has taken place. It is remarkable to see this type of development in Africa, but there is a dilemma when one considers some of the question marks hanging over Rwanda with regard to human rights and civil liberties.
	One perhaps first realises the scale of the genocide when visiting the museum and learning of the brutal killings and the horrific torture of women and children. The British NGO, the Aegis Trust, has built a fantastic memorial. My colleagues were brought to tears by some of the graphic displays of the genocide. It is a mass grave, with 250,000 people buried there. I am led to
	believe that it is the largest mass grave in the world. The museum displays thousands of photos of the dead, pinned by pegs to rows and rows of horizontal string. The children’s memorial upstairs lays bare the cruelty exacted on babies and toddlers, who were swung by the legs to crush their skulls, shot, burnt alive and hacked to bits by machetes in front of their parents. It becomes quickly apparent to the visitor that Hutu Power was not just about extermination, but torture and revenge. It targeted children, and that is one aspect of the genocide that is very hard to take in.
	Visitors also get that feeling at some of the other sites, and I think it is only the sights that carry the history. Rwanda has changed, but the decision to protect some of the sites was wise. We crossed the Nyabarongo river, where thousands were marched, brutally murdered and thrown into the river. The three churches at Nyamata, Ntarama and Gitarama are shocking: they show the full horror of genocide. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and I were taken aback by what we saw at Ntarama. It was a small church in which 5,000 people lost their lives. We were fortunate to meet a survivor, a young boy who was aged seven at the time. His story was that, while all the people around him were hacked to death in that small church, a rather large lady who was killed fell on him and he was buried alive at the bottom of the pile of people, which enabled him to survive. He was not identified by the militia; he is here today because of that piece of fortune. He saw his family murdered in the church. Worst of all, he, other family members and adults in that particular church had taken the decision that the toddlers and young children should be located in the nearby Sunday school, which they could see through the window. That is what the militia attacked first, murdering all the children in front of their parents’ eyes.
	Outside the Ntarama church I also met a woman survivor. Her family was hacked to death in front her, and her arm and part of her head were hacked off. The Government provided a small pension for her. Without UK general budget support, one wonders whether the pension and subsistence she receives would have been made available to some of the survivors. I am proud of the fact that we as a nation support Rwanda through general budget aid, allowing the Rwandan Government to provide that sort of support to people who have to live with the consequences of what happened 20 years ago.
	At Nyamata Parish Catholic church, there were 45,000 victims, with 10,000 of them massacred inside the church building. In the catacombs outside, cracked skulls and bones can be seen. Seeing the small skulls is what really gets to you because these were the skulls of small children. That was very hard to take, and one or two people on the visit could not go in for that reason.
	I met a young woman guide there: she is 32 now, but was only 12 when her family were murdered in front of her. She managed to escape with her eight-year-old and four-year-old sisters and lived in the marshes for 45 days. I was told that there are crocodiles in the marshes, so it was not just about surviving the militia who came looking for them every day. She had to survive in the harsh conditions of the marshes, with the crocodiles, while having nothing to eat and trying to care for an
	eight-year-old and a four-year-old. Heroic people like that provide inspiration, but we need to reflect on the fact that she has been left with just two young siblings in a broken country. Of course, many did not survive in the swamps; they were found by their pursuers.
	We went to a third church at Giterama, at which, according to the Gacaca court judges, 64,000 people were murdered. It was an unsavoury affair, with the Catholic Church being involved in, and accused of, collecting individuals from the area to take shelter in the church, only for the militia and Government forces to turn up. Visiting that site is shocking. The bodies are just buried at the bottom of a hill in a great big pile. I understand that many were buried alive. There were only two survivors out of the 64,000; it took two days to kill them all.
	These are the sort of stories that bring home the sheer scale of the murder that went on. Many of the Tutsis fled to that region when the massacres began in Kigali, and they lived in crowded conditions with little food or water, suffering from malaria and dysentery, with soldiers and militia passing by each day, picking out some to be killed. By the end of May before the Gitarama mass murder, there were 38,000 refugees living in that area. It was described as a death camp, with refugees helpless against the militia’s rape and killing. At the stadium in Kigali, 54,000 people lost their lives. These numbers are truly shocking. I was told that at the peak of the killing, the Hutu militia and the Government forces were killing more daily than the Nazis ever achieved in the holocaust, with an average of 10,000 Tutsis murdered a day.
	As mentioned in the opening speech from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), the response from the world was poor. As for the United States, President Clinton subsequently acknowledged his failure to act, calling it his worst failure, admitting “I blew it”. For the colonial powers of Belgium and France, the political consequences flow right through to today. The political recriminations over that inaction shape the political landscape, even as we speak. Belgium and particularly France stand accused of supporting the Hutu militia and ultimately the genocide. In 2010, President Sarkozy of France said that France in particular should accept that its response had been culpably weak. He said:
	“What happened here is a defeat for humanity”.
	He continued:
	“What happened here left an indelible stain. What happened here obliges the international community—including France—to reflect on the errors which prevented us from foreseeing, or stopping, this appalling crime.”
	Only last month, however, at the 20th anniversary commemorations, President Kagame accused both France and Belgium of having a “direct role” in the genocide. The Belgian Foreign Minister said that he intended to travel to Kigali to pay homage to the victims and their families, but he said:
	“We are not going to pay homage to the current Rwandan Government”.
	That tension exists 20 years on and it affects current policy. The role of not only France but Francophile countries still casts a shadow over the politics of the great lakes region and beyond, and that history is a dark shadow.
	I do not wish to offer my thoughts on that history or any deep analysis of the genocide, other than four of my own observations. First, as with Nazi Germany, many educated people were the instigators of genocide. Secondly, identity politics led directly to a rationale that inhumanity was a justified response. Thirdly, the media played a crucial role, whereby politics of identity were openly played out in an ever-increasing measure. People pick that up when they go to the museum in Kigali and see the cut-outs and the blow-ups of the newspaper clippings, fliers and posters that circulated at that time; they see just how that politics of identity were inflated so rapidly. That serves as a warning to us all that the language of hate may be moderated at first, but it is unadulterated in its finale. The language goes from, “These people cause problems” to what we got in Rwanda, which was “Those people are cockroaches and animals.” So, fourthly, we have to be careful about what we say in the United Kingdom, because when we visit Rwanda it is easy to see some of what happened there in the current discourse among British citizens now. The first steps that the German and Rwandan people accepted as legitimate concerns—on the path to genocide—are put to British people in debate right now by certain political parties, and we ought to be mindful of that.
	Rwanda today is a peaceful country that has exceptionally low levels of crime, which makes it a stand-out for Africa and the third world. It is a proud country and totally unrecognisable from its recent past. It is interesting to compare it with Burundi, which I was fortunate enough to visit, as Burundi reminds us of Rwanda two decades ago—indeed, it even used to be one country. When someone crosses the border from Burundi to Rwanda they can see the difference, as there has been GDP growth in Rwanda of 7.4% on average in the past 10 years. Small things capture the eye: the police and armed forces are personally attentive, in smart uniforms, quiet and not oppressive; everything is organised; there is a lack of people hanging about hawking or just loitering; the pavements are perfect; the people are not in rags and instead are looking healthy and well-dressed; there are cats eyes in the roads and the street lighting works; and the roads are smooth and well made, with well constructed drainage channels at either side.
	During my travels around Rwanda we met many people and travelled to many districts. No restrictions were placed on whom we met or spoke to. We were free to travel, but what was abundantly clear was an omnipresence of a philosophy from the central Government of national unity. It was clear that Executive power was concentrated in Kigali and in Kigali’s RPF Administration, but the opposition are allowed to speak with certain freedoms, within that concept of nationality. There was nothing oppressive about how we were treated on our visit and we were not followed around. I found MPs in the Rwandan Parliament to be informative and prepared to discuss difficult issues; there was nothing they were not prepared to consider. I did not consider it anything other than a free society, to a large extent. When we spoke to ordinary people, however, it was clear that they were cautious about offering a dissenting voice. They feared that that would be unpatriotic, that it would risk a return to the past, and that it would not represent the Government’s view of the future.
	We also had an opportunity to discuss the presidential election, which will take place in 2017 and which is focusing many eyes on the future of Rwanda. I spoke
	privately to many MPs who believed that President Kagame wished to end his tenure in 2017—that he had no desire to carry on. However, the conundrum was that the general public wanted him to carry on, because they did not want instability. They had experienced so many good years of progress that change represented a risk, and they were not prepared to take that risk. It was clear to me—although I may have been wrong—that Kagame was under pressure to stay not for political reasons, but for reasons of stability. In the light of my visit and the people to whom I spoke, I do not necessarily accept the view that he is an autocratic dictator, or that there is an authoritarian regime and he wants to hang on to it. Indeed, I think that the opposite may be true.
	Another thing that we noticed was how different local government was from national government. It is important to bear that in mind when we talk about freedom. There seems to be much more freedom at local level. People come together—the police, civic society, the Church, the military, religious organisations and others—to discuss openly the future of their areas. We sat in on some of their discussions, and it was interesting to hear some of what was said. I did not have the impression that any freedoms were impinged on, or that there was anything oppressive about the meetings. People were frank about wanting the best for their areas, expressing their collective view.
	It was interesting to observe Umuganda, the mandatory community work days designed by the community itself. The Rwandan people both have to and want to contribute to the rebuilding of their community: they seem to be hugely committed both to the community and to the country as a whole. There was a suggestion that the authorities took a very dim view of those who did not participate in that mandatory community work, or participated reluctantly.
	I was also interested by the social contracts whereby every household, street and neighbourhood must set its own targets for achievement each year and present them to local government, or, in the case of district councils and regions, present them to the national Government. The achievement might be acquiring an extra cow, adding an extension to a property, cleaning the roads, or rebuilding the gulleys in the roads. The Government are clearly slightly authoritarian—there are Government notices on buildings asking people to make the best of their ability, and to ensure that they finish the jobs that they have started—but I think that those are reasonable things to expect, and I would not suggest for a minute that Rwanda is a particularly authoritarian country at local level. Nevertheless, the social contracts return us to that big question about Rwanda, that big dilemma: do they represent the heavy hand of the state, or social progress? I think that those who visit the country are perpetually faced with that conundrum.
	One democratic element of life in Rwanda is the fact that the appointment of regional governors is rotated to prevent corruption, and there are billboards throughout the country advertising corruption hotlines. It is pleasant to live in a place where one not only feels safe, but feels that the institutions of government are representing the people in a very honest way.

Bob Stewart: During his visit, did the hon. Gentleman see any evidence of tension, or, indeed, encounter any
	people who said that they had taken part in the genocide and were sorry for it? Are any such people still in the country, or are they now outside it?

Graham Jones: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Before the hon. Gentleman responds, it might be helpful if I point out that there are five further speakers to come as well as the Front Benchers and the winding-up speech. I believe there was an instruction to keep the length of speeches to about 10 minutes, and the hon. Gentleman has gone way over that, but I am sure he is coming to the end of his remarks.

Graham Jones: Travelling around the country, we see the reconciliation villages, the process of peace and reconciliation and the coming together. What we see is people openly admitting that they committed crimes, although one gets the impression that where they have committed 40 crimes, perhaps they will admit to four or two. We also get, rather bizarrely, reconciliation villages in which there is intermarriage between families, the members of one having murdered those from the other. It is remarkable that people in such circumstances now get on and can be so forgiving. To be absolutely honest, where people do not get on, they tend to accept that and move out of the area, but in general there is not any conflict. We do not see retribution; instead we see people openly admitting that they need to come together. I never thought I would ever in my life see people so forgiving as I saw in Rwanda.
	The Government have been instrumental in all of this and it is important that the Government move Rwanda on. They have been very helpful to those who have been involved in these events. This has caused tensions, as it is necessary to let the perpetrators off and sometimes the victims feel frustrated about that. It is a managed process, but it has been managed very well.
	The Rwandan Government have had to absorb some 3 million refugees returning to the country, which is a huge challenge during such a process of forgiveness and reconciliation. The Gacaca courts have been criticised by human rights and civil liberty groups, but it has been difficult to deal with so many criminals. This has been a remarkable process. I do not think anybody would say that it was an all-round success—there might have been individual injustices, although it is not a Faustian pact—but it has moved Rwanda on and I think we have to accept certain things as part of that process.
	I will conclude now, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow others to speak.

Lindsay Hoyle: Marvellous; that is very generous.

Damian Hinds: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) on securing this important and timely debate and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it. It is an honour to speak after the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who spoke so passionately and movingly. I am also not the first Member who wants to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield
	(Mr Mitchell), because it was through him that I had the opportunity—less recently than the hon. Gentleman—to visit the beautiful country that we are discussing, to meet the beautiful people who live there, and to learn a bit more about what is probably the most shaming inaction of the so-called advanced world in my lifetime.
	When we were in Rwanda—there are other Members present who were on that trip—we repeatedly asked the survivors we met what we could do. They said consistently, “Remember us. Tell other people about us. Never forget, keep talking about genocide, keep reminding people that it can happen again.” I am speaking here today because before “never again” comes “never forget”. We are reminded of that by events happening now in the Central African Republic. Even while we were in Rwanda, at the genocide museum in Kigali the curator was talking about having to plan an extra space in the museum because of events in Darfur.
	In that museum, one of a series of moving pen-portrait memorials reads:
	“Name: Francine Murengezi Ingabire
	Age: 12
	Food: Eggs & chips
	Best friend: Elder sister, Claudette
	Death: Hacked by machete”.
	While the genocide museum memorial in Kigali brought to life the personal, individual tragedy of the genocide, it was at the Murambi memorial that we were struck by the sheer scale and indiscriminate horror of what happened. We had been warned before going there of the harrowing nature of what we would see, but nothing could prepare us for what we saw at Murambi. Room upon room is filled with the remains of men, women, children and babies. They are preserved in lime having already reached various stages of decay. Some still have hair and some remnants of clothing. A few of the rooms are more like store rooms in which bundles of clothes are packaged up on shelves and human bones are stored and filed by length. The most powerful thing about that memorial is the simple repetitiveness of it. Room after room is filled with the remains of human beings just as they fell; all apparently the same, but of course not all the same, because each one is a Francine or a friend of Francine, with their own individual tragedy.
	There are reminders in Rwanda of what happened and what could happen again. I remember checking into the convent in Butare. There was no street lighting in those days—I guess that things have moved on, as now there are broken street lights; before there were just no street lights outside Kigali. At one point, we caught a glimpse of the convent wall, encrusted with razor wire and broken glass, which served as a reminder of the protections that people still feel they may have to call on in future. At the time of the genocide, no church, school or convent was a place of sanctuary.
	Despite those reminders, the most striking thing in Rwanda is how safe it feels and how nice everybody is. They are the most smiling people one could hope to meet. Indeed, even when we were in a room with prisoners dressed in their pink pyjama-like outfits to designate what they had done, we felt strangely safe. It strikes one as the one country in the world that is least likely to suffer genocide. Being there made me think about that phrase, “Man’s inhumanity to man” and what it really means; what mankind is capable of. The conditions that
	lead to genocide are something that I have discussed many times with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) who has studied these subjects a great deal.
	There is a unique historical context in Rwanda, as there is in every place that suffers genocide, but there is also a striking degree of commonality, of spottable signs that come up again and again: the identity documents with group or ethnic membership on them; the creation of a narrative, a problem or a question to which elimination of the group is the solution; the extensive planning for that extermination; the drawing up of lists; the ramping up of hate through controlled media; the catalyst event—in this case, it was the shooting down of the presidential plane—that is implicitly understood by people to mean that this is where the killing begins; and then the speed of the deadly operation that starts with moderates on all sides and, among the targeted group, with elites and those who are best able to organise.
	Although there are all those elements of commonality, there are three things about the Rwandan genocide that make it startlingly different. The first was the mass nature of it. We cannot say that this was down to a few crack SS officers. The Interahamwe was a mass organisation, which was able to kill, because of the availability of machetes, without having been specifically armed. The second was the speed of it; the concentration of it. Almost one tenth of the population was wiped out within 100 days. Of course events were even more concentrated in the first days of the genocide. Third and most startling is that we knew about it. We, the world, knew about it and we did nothing to stop it.
	One good thing to come from those terrible events in 1994 is the evolution of international law to go beyond the rights of nation states and to recognise our common humanity and the rights of all people. It is a moment that is pregnant with possibility, and of course in the grand sweep of history, we are still in that same moment that is pregnant with possibility, but it is also very precarious. There are two key tensions. The first is that the responsibility to protect is of course a challenge to national sovereignty, and it is understandable that some countries have worries about how it might eventually be a beachhead to richer nations once again imposing their will on smaller ones under the guise of humanitarian concern. The second is that force is quite rightly intended to be the last resort and we should allow time for other avenues to be followed and for other developments, but in 1994 in Rwanda there was no time. The need to go through the process of having discussions at the UN and so on was the problem.
	Libya has been the one success so far of the responsibility to protect. We should not, because there has been only one example, underestimate its importance, as it is still a noble and worthwhile achievement. Even in the case of Libya, however, the deployment of the responsibility to protect was not uncontroversial because of what happened after the initial phase. As key countries such as China, Russia, Brazil, India and South Africa had misgivings, just being right about the rightness of humanitarian action was not enough. As we develop the responsibility to protect, we must proceed with caution, starting with how UN peacekeeping and peace enforcing operations are defined, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member
	for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). We must also consider the support we give to regional organisations in their work.
	It is one thing for China, Russia and others to be opposed to or have serious misgivings about the responsibility to protect and its deployment in certain situations, but it is quite another for us to give mixed messages. I do not mean this as a party political point and I do not want it to be interpreted as that in any way, but we should not underestimate the impact of the United Kingdom or, indeed, the United States, France or others being unable to unite around either a motion—such as a motion tabled in this House—or an expression of will on a point such as Syria. I think that the Syria vote will end up being a turning point in more ways than we yet realise, but I hope that never again will this House of Commons have to be divided on such an important issue. I hope that whoever is in government and whoever is in opposition, we will always be able to show a united front on these critical issues of protection.
	There are some things we can learn from what has happened in Rwanda post-genocide, both good and bad. It is worth remembering that far more good things than bad have happened in that country since, as the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said, such as the focus on justice and truth, the use of the Gacaca courts, the revulsion against violence—it is quite remarkable that part way through this process Rwanda abolished the death penalty, when one might think that retribution would be far higher on people’s list of priorities—and the creation of a shared sense of nationhood under which there are no Hutus or Tutsis but only Rwandans. Economic growth has been exceptional and we have seen the development of a legal system, property rights and a private sector. All those things are important in tackling poverty and making barbarism less possible.
	We should be proud of the UK’s role in such change, but we must be a critical friend and must hold the Government to account. More is needed, as the situation is far from perfect, even if considered apart from what has happened in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is fair to say that right after a genocide it would be totally unrealistic to expect the incoming regime to be indifferent to matters such as media ownership and how political parties might develop. We cannot expect a liberal democracy simply to be put in place and be fully functioning. However, this 20th anniversary is an appropriate time to put fresh pressure on our friends in Rwanda with regard to the development of civil society and a freer media and creating a space for political dissent, while being watchful against the development of political parties and movements based on racial and other divisive lines.
	The most striking image of the genocide in 1994, in many ways, actually comes from a film, “Shooting Dogs”, which has already been mentioned. Today, the sports field at the école technique officielle is a place of calm—it is just a sports field—but the signs are still there if one looks. There are machete marks on the trees around the outside. What happened at that place is a microcosm of what happened in Rwanda, and what we must guard against happening ever again anywhere else. When the United Nations failed to agree action, and then when the first westerners were killed, the troops of the international force that the world had created to protect our universal values were told to drive away,
	leaving to their unthinkable fate the 5,000 or so men, women and children gathered at a place that they thought was to be a place of safety, even as the frustrated militia men in their hundreds gathered at the perimeter, lashing out with their machetes at the trees, venting their frustration at the mild inconvenience they had to go through of having to wait for the soldiers to leave before they could get down to their gruesome work.
	The then leaders of nations who could have done something, and the United Nations itself, were chastened by what happened in that central African country in 1994, and by our collective world inaction. That led to that moment that I mentioned—the moment that is pregnant with possibility, through the responsibility to protect. That is a moment that we simply cannot afford to let pass.

Stephen Twigg: I draw the House’s attention to my relevant entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it. It is absolutely right that the House takes the opportunity to commemorate the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and it is a pleasure to speak after three compelling and powerful speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	The Kinyarwandan word kwibuka means remembrance, and we are part of Kwibuka20, the 20th anniversary of the genocide. A flame of remembrance has been carried around Rwanda, and a similar flame of remembrance was carried around this country. I was delighted to join the lord mayor of Liverpool and others in welcoming the flame to Liverpool town hall in March 2014. The hon. Member for Braintree spoke about the event at which the Rwandan Foreign Minister spoke—the global conversation, which was hosted here in Parliament in March. I was delighted to be part of that event, and then to have the privilege to go back to Rwanda last month to attend the commemoration at which, as has been said, we were represented by the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds).
	Since last December I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. That all-party group was set up in 2005, in the wake of the world summit to take forward the important principle of the responsibility to protect. I am delighted that in framing of the motion before us, the hon. Member for Braintree has not only remembered Rwanda but has made that express connection to the responsibility to protect. I will return to that at the end of my remarks.
	I thank the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which funded my attendance of the Kigali international forum on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group. At that forum I made a proposal that we should have a global parliamentary network of parliamentarians in all continents who are determined to work together on a cross-party basis to prevent future genocides and other mass atrocities. At the moment, the only other
	Parliament that has an all-party group similar to ours is Canada. It was set up at the behest of Roméo Dallaire, who is now a Senator in the Canadian Parliament but was the UN commander on the ground in Kigali in 1994. I was delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the establishment of such a network with parliamentarians from Rwanda itself, from other east African Parliaments who attended the Kigali forum, from the German Parliament on a cross-party basis, and from Australia, and I will be working with colleagues, I am sure, on both sides of the House and in the other place on forging that global parliamentary network, which is an initiative of the Aegis Trust.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the important work of the Aegis Trust. I had the privilege to work with the trust for five years during my enforced exile from this place between 2005 and 2010. It was with the trust that I first went to Rwanda in 2005. The Aegis Trust is a remarkable organisation, set up originally by a family in the parliamentary constituency of Newark, by coincidence, whose first act was to establish the holocaust memorial in this country known as Beth Shalom. The Smith family are a Christian family who visited Yad Vashem in Israel, saw the holocaust memorial there and made the decision to establish a similar memorial in this country. They used their own home to provide that museum, which educates thousands of young people every year on the horrors of the Nazi holocaust and other genocides and mass atrocities.
	After the family had run the holocaust memorial for some years, a number of people asked them, “What about what is happening now? What about other genocides that have happened since the holocaust?” They therefore decided to set up the Aegis Trust to remember what had happened in Rwanda, Cambodia and elsewhere, and crucially to work for the prevention of further genocides and mass atrocities. Both Stephen Smith and James Smith have rightly been honoured by Her Majesty the Queen in honours lists, most recently with James, the chief executive of the trust, being awarded the CBE.

Bob Stewart: When I was the British United Nations commander in Bosnia, one of the biggest obstacles to getting international action was the refusal to call what was happening genocide. Once an act is defined as genocide, the United Nations is compelled to do something about it. Does the responsibility to protect ensure that we can now get genocide quickly defined as such, to overcome that reluctance to act?

Stephen Twigg: I hope so. That is my honest answer. I will come to the specifics of how we might move forward on the responsibility to protect. It would be terrible if we had another situation where an atrocity was emerging and, for definitional reasons, we were unable to take appropriate action to prevent it from happening.
	While I was in Kigali last month, in addition to attending the national commemoration at the football stadium, we had the 10th anniversary commemoration of the Kigali genocide memorial, which all Members have mentioned. The commemoration event was incredibly powerful. During that day, the mufti of Rwanda, the leader of the Muslim community there, spoke, and he did so on behalf of the Muslim community and also the main Christian Churches in Rwanda. He spoke about a new cross-faith initiative to take up what is happening
	in the Central African Republic. One of the things that has come out of the Rwandan genocide is that the Government as well as the people of Rwanda are key voices in demanding international action in situations that they rightly fear could result in genocide or other mass atrocities.
	Remembrance is vital, especially in this year. Commemoration and education are crucial, but as Members on both sides of the House have said, we need also to focus on prevention, and it is on that subject that I wish to finish my remarks. How can we make this responsibility to protect a concrete reality? I concur with the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). There are some real challenges in forging a consensus globally on this. We cannot underestimate the scale of those challenges, but it is vital that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of taking this forward.
	Will the Minister say something about the current initiative from the French Government, who are proposing a code of conduct concerning the use of the veto power by the permanent members of the Security Council? The French Government propose that this should be adopted—this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The proposal is for a mutual commitment by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to suspend their right of veto in situations of mass atrocities.
	We know that in 1994 there was a failure of collective action to prevent Rwandans from being killed simply because they were Tutsi or because they were Hutu people intervening on behalf of Tutsis.

Brooks Newmark: On that important point, the French proposal is excellent but the weakness in it is what we see in Syria today, where the Russians have a vested interest in what is going on. It would be impossible to achieve a consensus, whereby all five suspended their veto, if vested interests were at stake.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which anticipates something that I am about to say. He is right to remind us of the scale of the challenge. The French proposal is an important step in the right direction and I encourage the British Government to take a positive approach to it, but clearly it is not sufficient if we cannot secure the political will of the other members. We are talking here primarily about Russia and China in the context of challenges that we face today.
	When the responsibility to protect was adopted universally by the UN General Assembly, that marked an important moment in the collective recognition of our shared responsibility. However, we all know that it is one thing to adopt principles and another to act on them. The veto power has been used on a number of occasions, most recently in the context of Syria, when double vetoes by Russia and China have blocked actions that could have saved civilian lives. I urge the Minister to signal the UK’s support for the French initiative as a way of strengthening the resolve of the permanent members of the Security Council to prevent atrocities from happening and to respond to them more quickly when they do.
	“Never again” was the slogan the world adopted after the Nazi holocaust. We have learnt a lot since then, but we have also seen what happened in Cambodia and Srebrenica, what is happening in Syria, in the Central African Republic and in Darfur and, of course, what happened in Rwanda. We still have a long way to go, but I hope that in this House, as this debate demonstrates, we can show that there is a real sense of shared concern, shared humanity and solidarity with those working in other parts of the world, often in far more challenging circumstances, to prevent genocide and to educate people about it.
	I finish by thanking the hon. Member for Braintree once again for giving us the opportunity to air this very important set of issues.

Pauline Latham: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) on securing this very important debate commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. I would also like to wish him a happy birthday. The fact that the Backbench Business Committee granted the debate shows that it sees this as a serious issue that should be discussed. It is a great pleasure to follow not only my hon. Friend, but other hon. Members who have spoken passionately, drawing on first-hand knowledge of visiting Rwanda. There is nothing better than visiting the country to see what the situation is like on the ground. I actually met my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) there before the election, with Project Umubano.
	Members have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on setting up Project Umubano for the Conservative party. It has been phenomenally successful, not just in what we have done—there has been some extremely good work—but in enabling people who might never have had the opportunity to visit that country to go and see it for themselves, particularly some of the young people who have worked there for two weeks during the summer. When they come back they understand what it is like and why we give money for international development. It is a very important initiative to have started.

Brooks Newmark: Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for all his efforts and hard work in setting up that initiative, because he has introduced people like me and colleagues on the Government side of the House to the concept of international development and to the tragedy that happened in Rwanda? We have much to thank him for.

Pauline Latham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also note that the Prime Minister endorsed it when in opposition, and Lord Ashcroft has been incredibly supportive of various initiatives out there, so many people have been involved. However, our debate is not about what the Conservative party has done, even though it has been fantastic for many people; it is about what has happened.
	I have now been to Rwanda six times: four with Project Umubano, one with the International Development Committee and, most recently, in April, with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have seen
	how the country has progressed over that period. It has changed from being quite a good African country to being an amazing African country, and the example it has set could provide many lessons for other African countries. There have been criticisms by the international press about the President of Rwanda, but we should consider where he has moved the country from and to in just 20 years. We might think that we have done quite well in moving on from the second world war, and that was 70 years ago. People have not forgotten what happened, but I believe that they are prepared to put it behind them and to move on. I have been astonished at the consensus that that has generated among people there.

Angus MacNeil: To support what the hon. Lady is saying, when I was in Rwanda and taken to a reconciliation village, it was striking to see a former genocidier from the nominal Hutus join a Tutsi woman. He was involved in the genocide, but he now looks after her children when she goes to work and deals with her other commitments. She had lost more than three quarters of her family in the genocide. That experience is testament to the hon. Lady’s words.

Pauline Latham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) will remember that during our most recent visit we met people who had married across the Hutu-Tutsi divide and were making a go of it, difficult though it has been. They were not isolated examples; there were others. That shows the tremendous distance that the country and particularly individuals have moved.

Graham Jones: To add to that, there was not just a marriage; one of the partners had murdered the other partner’s family.

Pauline Latham: Again, that shows the tremendous journey that people have taken. We can all look back to the past. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about going to Murambi and seeing the bodies. We have talked about seeing the memorials at the genocide memorial centre, and I defy anyone to come out of there without having been moved, but that is the past and it is fantastic that the country has moved on. We have heard stories about good roads and street lights that work, but there are many other examples of how the country has moved on. It still has a long way to go to be perfect, but it has moved on enormously.
	One of the criticisms has been about the fact that there has not been press freedom. But, last time I went to Rwanda I was most impressed because it has decided to have freedom of the press—it is in legislation. The problem is that it does not know how to use that freedom and it needs to be trained. Even broadcasters from Parliament are allowed to choose what they broadcast, whereas when I visited three years ago they could not do that and had to produce the stuff that was being spoken about in Parliament, which is often deadly dull for most people. They are now going to do all sorts of other things. That is a huge freedom for the people of Rwanda.
	It is understandable that there was no press freedom at the beginning. That is where much of the agitation came from during the genocide. The radio broadcasters incited violence and said, “Prepare to kill the cockroaches.” They encouraged people to do that, so it is understandable why any President taking over a country that has gone through 100 days of slaughter did not want press freedom. It will take a while to mature, but it is there and journalists are grateful for it.
	There has been huge criticism of the President, but we must look at where he came from. He took over a broken country with massive problems. It is understandable that he has been authoritarian, but he is beginning to relax what is happening now and he is also very popular. The hon. Member for Hyndburn painted a graphic picture in everything he said about our visit, but we heard how popular the President is with the people, who will try to persuade him to stay for a third term. Whether he chooses to do so will be up to him, but I am certain that the pressure will be there. One of his problems is that there is no recognisable candidate to succeed him. People need to plan for the future so that there is a credible candidate to follow him. So far that has not happened.
	Something that the Rwandan Parliament has got right, even though it is done by quotas, is its huge proportion of women—far better than ours and better than many other countries in the world. The Parliament has some very effective women and I am sure that that has changed the nature of debate, as indeed it does when more women are here in the Chamber.
	The after-effects are beginning to go. After the genocide, there were very many orphan-headed households. Of course, by now those orphans must be more than 20 years old, so there are grown-up heads of households. They probably have multiple problems, including mental health issues, that need help, but at least there are no longer orphan-headed households where children are trying to bring up and look after their siblings. Many people adopted neighbours’ children because the parents had been slaughtered. Many people did an awful lot of things to help those who were in a very difficult situation.
	People have mentioned a film called “Shooting Dogs”. Many people have seen “Hotel Rwanda”, which is very much a sanitised version—the Hollywood version—of what happened, and I understand that it is not terribly accurate. The two films that have affected me most are “Sometimes in April” and “Shooting Dogs”. I wish more people would watch them, because they would have a greater understanding of what happened.
	Let me go back to progress in the country. During our last visit, we met the president, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. The president talked about the fact that, for the first time, the country is now self-sufficient in food. That means that people should be able to go on to export even more; they already export tea, coffee, bananas, and so on. I have even bought Rwandan coffee in Sainsbury’s, so these things are out there. This country should be encouraging them to become even more self-sufficient and to do even more towards exporting, because that will help their economy.
	That process has been helped by the villagisation project. Rwanda is the most beautiful country one could possibly imagine. It is one of the most beautiful countries in Africa. It is green and hilly. It is not very
	big—no bigger than Wales. Previously, there was no planning law, so people built all over the place, and there were no cohesive villages. People are now being moved into villages away from their homes. One could say that that is not a good idea, but in fact they are being given proper homes with electricity and sanitation, which leads to better health. It is in people’s interests to move into those homes, thus freeing up land for more agriculture. That is why people are now being successful. One can drive around to see the villagisation projects and how they are working. They are very well-structured places. Many of them even have fibre-optic cables so as to be able to access the internet.
	The president has a long-term vision, and he is delivering on it. He is not at the end yet, but he is getting there. It is important for this country to recognise that. It would be jolly nice if we all had fibre-optic cables; in fact, it would be good if we all had the chance of broadband.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady makes another good point about the advancement of Rwanda. I was struck not just by the infrastructure but by the human capital that was deciding to return to the country. People who are highly trained in medicine and could be earning very high salaries in the United States of America have decided to forgo that opportunity, and with a sense of purpose and humanitarianism have gone back to their own country of Rwanda to help build a better society. That shows notable self-sacrifice.

Pauline Latham: I agree. It is important that people who have learnt skills in other countries can go back and help out.
	We should look at the example that Rwanda is setting. When we went to the Democratic Republic of the Congo border, we saw fantastic roads, wonderful policing, and a place for people to go and get their visas. Across the barrier in the DRC, people are in rags with no proper transport and no proper roads; it is completely dysfunctional. Rwanda should be a shining example to other countries in Africa. Many countries could follow its example. I believe that one of the reasons why it is in such a situation is the lack of corruption. That is incredibly important and should be valued by other countries. “Never again” is the slogan, and, indeed, we must not let it happen again.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and, indeed, everyone who has already spoken. We have heard some excellent and moving speeches.
	In April 1994, I and my family lived in Tanzania and our only real contact with the outside world was the BBC World Service. At this point, I pay tribute to the importance of the World Service for broadcasting by and large the best unbiased news around the world. We have already heard how important the service was to many Rwandans. Whenever we talk about the future of the World Service—whether in this Parliament or the next—let us never forget how much it is valued by hundreds of millions, even billions, of people around the world.
	I was particularly interested in two things that were going on in April 1994. The first was the remarkable events in South Africa, where a really serious situation
	that could have resulted in severe civil unrest—possibly even a civil war—was turned around by national reconciliation and international mediation, which resulted in the wonderful election that brought President Nelson Mandela to power. There could have been chaos, but there was not.
	At the same time, the opposite was happening in Rwanda, where the Arusha accords—which had given a glimmer of light not just to Rwanda, but to Burundi—were torn apart when the plane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi crashed on 6 April 1994. I remember that particularly well, because on that very evening someone was waiting at Kigali airport to receive a friend of ours who was going to work in Rwanda for a few weeks before coming to Tanzania. His plane had to be diverted and the man who was meant to meet him at the airport did not survive that night—he was caught up in the genocide.
	Since then, as we have been reminded, Rwanda has made enormous progress. This is not just about the economic growth of up to 8% a year on average, but about education. It is investing in higher education and there is recognition, as has been said, that the future of Rwanda is in its human capital. It lacks natural resources other than its beauty and its agriculture. It does not have the minerals, but it does have the people, which is why the President and the Government are absolutely right to invest in higher education.
	One example of the progress Rwanda has made is the way in which it is tackling malaria. The President and the Government have now said that they want to eliminate deaths as a result of malaria by 2018. I do not doubt that that is possible, such is the progress they have made with the distribution of bed nets, indoor residual spraying and the improvement of the health service. Other Members have referred to the lack of corruption, and Rwanda is indeed a model of a country that says that corruption is bad for development and for the ordinary people.
	The UK has played a major role under both the previous and the current Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and I had the pleasure of going on an international development trip, during which we saw an excellent programme for the establishment of a land registry and the granting of titles to every single plot—about 10 million of them—in Rwanda. That has already resulted in improvements in investment, productivity and agriculture, particularly smallholder agriculture, which is vital for employment and household incomes in Rwanda and elsewhere. Rwanda also has stability, which is vital and prized and probably the primary reason why President Kagame is so popular.
	Instability, however, remains in the region. The people of Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania and particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo have felt the consequences of that instability at various times. Nowhere is that more true than in the DRC, which has seen millions of people die and hundreds of thousands, even millions, of women suffer the brutality of rape and sexual violence. There must be no let-up in the work to bring peace to that region. We cannot focus on Rwanda without focusing on the entire region. We must ensure that those who, for whatever reason, perpetrate this violence are defeated and brought to account.
	If there is one lesson that I want the United Kingdom and the international community to learn above all—I hope that we do learn it—it is that when there is
	prevarication and delay in confronting evil, it consequences will only be worse. The example of the Rwandan genocide was one of prevarication and delay in confronting evil, a word which I do not use lightly. Evil was present in Rwanda at that time, as it has been in other places that have subsequently seen the kind of devastation experienced by Rwanda.
	This is a time to remember not just those who perished and their families, but the survivors. I, too, have been very privileged to take part in Project Umubano, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). One organisation we work with in Rwanda is SURF, or the Survivors Fund UK. With tremendous support from the UK—from DFID and Comic Relief, and from individual donors—it is working with local organisations to support survivors, whether widows, young people or orphans, and umbrella organisations. Together, such organisations care for the needs of more than 300,000 survivors and their dependants, who are often some of the poorest. They obviously suffer from disability and unemployment, and they include widows and children who have had to bring up their siblings from a very young age. The work of all the organisations aims to foster self-reliance. I read about a lady called Francine, who said:
	“Before I was alone, I never thought about the future of my life. After joining this group”—
	a project supported by DFID in Rwanda—
	“I can look forward because I share my life experience with others.”
	That is so important. We should not forget the survivors, and I am sure that we will not do so.
	Survivors have a need not just for food and employment, but for justice. For many of them, justice has still not come. There has been the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, which will close this year. It has cost $1 billion, which is an enormous amount of money. It has done important work, but it has no mandate for reparation, and the Rwandan survivors have received none. In many ways, the Gacaca courts have been much more effective and efficient than the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda—they have a mandate for restitution and have made many thousands of restitution grants, although many of them have not been fulfilled—but even they do not have a mandate for reparation. It is very important to the survivors—or, God forbid, to victims of any future mass killings—that the concept of reparation is implemented and not forgotten, because it is a vital part of justice.

Brooks Newmark: I thank my hon. Friend for his amazing work in leading Project Umubano, and I commend his excellent Swahili, which I have heard at first hand. Does he agree that, following this terrible tragedy, what was most impressive was the ability of the Government to abolish the death penalty, rather than to use it to seek retribution?

Jeremy Lefroy: I did not realise that that had happened until my second or third visit to Rwanda, and I was hugely struck by it. If we compare even the reaction of the allied powers after the second world war with what Rwanda has done, I think that it was a very gracious and humble but formidable act that speaks very powerfully and should be much better known.
	What lessons can we learn? We have heard much about the responsibility to protect, which is absolutely vital, but I want to draw a few other conclusions. The first is about intelligence. General Dallaire, who has often been mentioned—I have read his excellent book—knew and passed on information at quite an early stage, and certainly several months before the genocide took place, about a potential catastrophe in the country, but it was ignored. We ignore intelligence at our peril in such matters. We may at the moment have intelligence from countries around the world about something serious that is brewing, and we must take note of it and act on it.

Pamela Nash: Does the hon. Gentleman share my chronic fear that we have not learned the lessons from 1994? He mentioned that similar situations might be brewing around the world. We know about them already, but we are not acting.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am afraid that I do share that concern. I regret to say that, but I do not think that we have learned the lessons. There are serious situations around the world that we are almost turning a blind eye to. I remember hearing at first hand from friends of mine who had gone to work in the refugee camps on the Tanzanian border, when the refugees were flooding over at a rate of thousands or even tens of thousands a day, about the bodies from the genocide floating down the River Ngara. In spite of the evidence in front of our eyes, the world did not call it a genocide at that point and no action was taken.
	That leads me to my second point. We can ignore intelligence, but if we ignore what is in front of our own eyes, what hope is there? We have to act much more quickly than we do.
	Thirdly, we had the resources. Expatriates were evacuated by well-armed western forces before the very people with whom they worked were slaughtered a few hours or a day or two later. There was the ability to do something, but we simply did not do it. That must never, ever happen again. The first responsibility of our armed forces is to protect this nation, but our responsibility as part of the international community goes wider than that. We must not be afraid to commit our forces to such action to protect people around the world if it is necessary.
	Such action is more necessary than ever because of the increase in extremism around the world, whether in religion, politics or nationalism, which leaves minorities everywhere at greater risk. That is true even in democracies, because a democracy is the rule of the majority, unless minorities have the protection of the law—domestic law, ideally, but international law if domestic law is failing.
	As we remember what happened 20 years ago, let us not be complacent in any way. Wherever there is conflict or the potential for conflict, there must be no let-up in the efforts to bring peace. We saw the tremendous fruits of that in South Africa, where the international community was engaged, and the devastating consequences in Rwanda when it was not.

Andrew Jones: It is a privilege to follow so many powerful speeches from across the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend
	the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) on securing this debate. I am glad that the House has the opportunity to mark the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. It was so shocking, there was so much suffering and there are so many lessons for the international community after the shameful inaction, when what was happening was known about.
	I wanted to participate in this debate because I was fortunate enough to visit Rwanda last year as part of a volunteer programme, Project Umubano, which has been described in this debate. It was a fascinating, thoroughly sobering and enjoyable experience. I joined the programme to teach business skills, but I think that I learned far more than I taught.
	The genocide killed between 800,000 and 1 million people. Tens of thousands more were displaced and up to a quarter of a million women were raped. I want to spend a few minutes talking about how communities and countries can be rebuilt after such events. We talk about the challenges facing communities in this country and we all work to build stronger communities in our constituencies, but my mind boggles at the challenges that the Rwandan Government faced.
	The Rwanda Governance Board has established several programmes to help with community building, especially through dispute resolution. While in Rwanda, I was fortunate enough to participate in one of those programmes, Umuganda, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). Umuganda means community service and it is a big deal in Rwanda. In practical terms, it takes place on the last Saturday of every month between 8 o’clock and 11 o’clock in the morning. It is compulsory: everybody aged between 18 and 65 has to participate. Businesses close and public transport is limited at that time. There are hundreds of projects across the country doing everything from cutting grass or cleaning an area to building a community facility.
	The project I was involved in was building a storm drain. The whole of the volunteer group I was with, including colleagues from the House, participated. We carried dirt and stones and helped build the drain. We had a slightly surreal moment with a long human chain carrying the stones, which involved my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) passing rocks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who passed them to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, who passed them to me, and I passed them on. There must have been 200 or so people participating, working hard and with a great spirit. We met many local people, which was one of the highlights of my two weeks in Africa.
	At the end of the session, the whole local community gathered to hear speeches from their local representatives and community leaders. I should mention that one of the speakers was my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who delivered a speech in flawless Swahili. There was an audible gasp of appreciation from the community at his language skills. The speech went down very well and there was much laughter. I have no idea what he said, but it was clearly very good.
	The point of Umuganda is not the community projects themselves, although communities clearly benefit from them, but that people come together in a collective enterprise. It is about building links and cohesion, about creating loyalty to each other and to the communities
	they live in. People have put sweat into building something and they have a stake in seeing it thrive. I was certainly impressed by what I saw.
	While in Rwanda, our group visited the national genocide memorial in Kigali, where my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West laid a wreath on behalf of the group. The centre is built on a site where more than 250,000 are buried. It was sobering to see the records of what had happened, and hard to grasp the scale of the numbers and the brutality.
	I also visited a second memorial, at Ntarama. Deep in the countryside, Ntarama is a village and people had gone to its church for refuge. However, there was no safety there. It was attacked and around 5,000 people were killed, mainly women and children. As well as the mass graves, the site has stacks of bones on shelves, stained clothing and some personal belongings of those who died. It is hard not to be struck by the contrast between the peaceful surroundings outside—the trees and the birdsong—and the horror within. I shall not talk about the detail of the things that we saw. I have visited some dark places—for example, holocaust sites across Europe—but this was a very dark place indeed.
	The transformation in Rwanda over just 20 years is extraordinary. I am not saying that everything is rosy. It clearly is not. However, there is economic stability and reconstruction, and fantastic levels of economic growth. There are strong efforts at community building, and it was one of those that I wanted to share with the House today.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree again on securing the debate. We sometimes think that genocides are part of the horror of the second world war and something that we have left behind. That is wrong. There are examples from Cambodia, Bosnia and, of course, Rwanda. It is right to remember, to learn and to note our responsibilities.

Pamela Nash: I did not think that there would be time for me to speak today, so I did not prepare anything, but I have been to Rwanda. I direct Members to my entry in the register. I also have a family connection there. My step-grandmother is Tutsi and had to flee Rwanda in an earlier wave of violence. Rwanda therefore means a lot to me and my family.
	I share the positivity that has been expressed in the House today about the current situation in Rwanda and its future. It has indeed come on in leaps and bounds and that is partly due to the success of the unique truth commission and what has happened subsequently. The empowerment of women, which was mentioned in the debate, has also been pivotal in changing the political outlook. That did not happen by accident. Rwanda has also been helped by—I am sad to use the term—the “guilt money” that flowed in from all over the world when people saw what was happening playing out on their television screens and tried to fill the hole in everyone’s hearts. Money came in from around the world to try to repair some of the pain that had been caused.
	Unfortunately, I do not feel that positivity about the situation in other places. As I said in an intervention, I worry that we have not learned all the lessons that we
	might have done from 1994. I greatly fear that this might happen again, and I urge colleagues of all parties and on both Front Benches to keep that in mind. I hope that I am wrong.

Ian Lucas: It has been a real pleasure to sit through the debate and listen to Members’ contributions. They have impressed upon me again the importance of Members travelling to and experiencing places such as Rwanda for themselves. This would have been a much poorer debate if we had simply been talking about a country that we had read about in books.
	I have limited time, but I will refer to all the speeches that have been made. It has been such a high-quality and informative debate that it is important that I do so. First, I thank the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who has brought us all here today and who recounted matters from his deep knowledge. I pay tribute to him for the work that he is doing with his charity and school. There are many great projects whereby schools in the UK and in Africa are learning much about each other, and such projects of interaction between young people—we have one in my constituency—are wonderful to see. I hope that in due course, they will lead to solutions to some of the intractable political issues that occur when conflict happens, which have been touched on in the debate. We need to be an outward-looking country in a world in which people travel more and more, and we always need to bear in mind our responsibilities across the globe. That has been an enduring theme of the debate.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the Aegis Trust, and I want to ensure that I pay tribute to that organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) obviously knows a great deal about it, as a former employee. When I visited the Kigali memorial, it was good to see the tremendous work that takes place there.
	We heard the good Lancashire tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who spoke in great detail about the importance of Rwanda and the progress that has been made there. He made interesting points about the balance that we need to strike between remembering Rwanda’s extraordinary, horrific past and considering the present that reflects it. When I visited Rwanda, I spoke to Ministers and other people who impressed upon me the importance of understanding how the horrific nature of what happened in 1994 is reflected in the present, and how the perception of Rwanda now is conditioned by what happened 20 years ago. That is an important point to remember whenever we talk about that unique country.
	The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made an excellent speech in which he talked about the importance of the responsibility to protect. His reflections on Rwanda were based on having visited it. I speak personally in saying that visiting Rwanda has a real impact on people, and I believe that all Members who have spoken would agree with that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby made an interesting speech in which he referred to the discussions on the United Nations veto. We need
	to examine our international institutions. Members have touched on difficult political issues in other places at the moment, and my impression as a shadow Foreign Affairs Minister is that consistency is one of the most important principles that we need to apply. Countries across the globe need to set aside their own interests for the collective good. That is a trite, short message to say, but it is very difficult to achieve. It means that individual countries will always have to stand back and sacrifice their own interests where serious issues press.
	The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) stressed the importance of women in Rwandan politics, who are very evident, impressive and have a hugely positive impact on the enormous progress made. She also mentioned the lack of corruption, which I think is intrinsic and pivotal to the progress that Rwanda is making.
	We heard so much about the Swahili spoken by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) that I must hear it, perhaps on another occasion, and I am sure I will be enormously impressed. He highlighted the threat of increasing extremism right across the globe that we are encountering—I know the Minister is also encountering that in the middle east in his current role. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) presented me with the wonderful picture of Conservative MPs handing rocks to each other—a very constructive process. Indeed, some would say that that is more constructive than some of the other things that they do, but perhaps this is not the occasion for cheap political jibes. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) again referred to the important role of women in Rwanda, and made brief observations about the responsibility to protect, which is important.
	This has been an excellent debate, but I am surprised that no one has mentioned that Rwanda joined the Commonwealth in November 2009. I am amazed that I am the first person to mention that point, and delighted. It is an indication of the tremendous progress that Rwanda has made, and of its commitment to a democratic future. It is also expressive of the growing bond between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, because that country was not a traditional part of the British empire. That is a positive step, and part of the future between the United Kingdom and Rwanda will be due to the fact that it is a member of the Commonwealth, and we will be working with it, and learning from each other about the progress of democracy.
	We have heard about the horrific Rwandan genocide. I visited Kigali last year through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I am grateful to it for that. As many people have observed, Rwanda is a physically beautiful, stunning country, and a place where one cannot imagine horrific things happening. When I visited I saw the genocide memorial and spoke to survivors, and I was profoundly shocked by the systematic killing that had taken place. Indeed, the systematic nature of it put me in mind of the holocaust and my visits to Yad Vashem and subsequently to Auschwitz, and it shocked me most profoundly. That aspect needs to be stressed when we talk about Rwanda.
	That the holocaust happened is a stain on human history, and that the Rwandan genocide happened subsequently is the most compelling reason for combining the holocaust memorial movement with highlighting the detail of the Rwandan genocide. Of course, that is
	what is happening through groups such as the all-party group for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, and that work is being carried forward. I attended a Holocaust memorial day event at which a Rwandan survivor gave an account of what had happened in Rwanda, which was very powerful. I commend people from Rwanda and holocaust survivors for working together in that way and getting across the message that this is something that happened twice, as well as on other occasions that we know about in recent history.
	It is against the backdrop of the dreadful events described by the hon. Member for Braintree at the beginning of this debate that we see the present state of Rwanda. Extraordinary progress has been made and that is hugely impressive. An understanding of what happened in the genocide is an essential precondition to understanding Rwanda today. There is a real determination in the country to build a Rwandan identity to overcome the past. Rwanda’s admission to the Commonwealth, in November 2009, is expressive of its wish to build a democratic future where human rights are respected. We know from our own history that this is not a straightforward path and that each individual country will follow it in its own way. The role of the Commonwealth, with the United Kingdom playing its part, should be to help any Commonwealth country that wants to follow that road.
	There has been extraordinary progress in the 20 years since the genocide. Led by President Kagame, the Government in Rwanda have made enormous strides. One cannot help but be struck by the impressive roads and communications, the cleanliness and the enormous steps that have been made to reduce poverty. We see the importance placed on education, referred to in the debate, which is the route to a more positive future for any country.
	On my visit to Rwanda, I was impressed by the country’s functional capacity and cohesion. I saw the land registration project mentioned by the hon. Member for Stafford. Distribution and ownership of land is an essential precondition of a functioning economy. It is a fundamental way of building an economy. That has been aided by DFID. A great deal of positive work has been done by the United Kingdom and UK aid. The role of women is strongly supported by the UK. That is a very important part of the positive path that Rwanda is currently taking.
	I have spoken to private sector investors who are massively impressed by Rwanda because of its lack of corruption. They will not invest anywhere else in Africa, because of their perception of the lack of corruption in Rwanda. Rwanda’s progress has led to massive support for President Kagame at the ballot box, but the impact of an effective opposition is yet to be seen in the country. Striking the delicate balance between building a cohesive society, given the horrific genocide, and encouraging a multiplicity of political views, is a challenge that continues.
	Members referred to the responsibility to protect doctrine. It is a difficult doctrine, which countries and Governments must continue to work on to address the problems we face across the globe. It is difficult, but essential. We have talked about the impact of conflict around the world. The Rwandan genocide of 20 years ago is a reminder that these events can happen and have happened more than once. We need to forge an international
	response, so we have in place measures to ensure that our responsibilities and common humanity always trump our individual national interests.

Hugh Robertson: This has been a moving, powerful and constructive couple of hours. At the outset, it is appropriate to join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) on securing this important debate. I wish him a very happy birthday on behalf of us all. I thank all Members who have participated. I thought that this might be one of those afternoons when the House was at its best, but it has exceeded itself. It has been fascinating for me to listen to the strong support for Rwanda.
	Everyone would acknowledge that Rwanda is a country that can divide opinion, but the support for it has been clear today, from people who know a lot about the country and have visited it. I was struck by the quality of the contributions and the excellent point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) when he said that Rwanda is now in the Commonwealth.
	Perhaps I should apologise for not being the Minister with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who, with the Foreign Secretary, attended the commemorations in Rwanda and is on the continent at the moment, but this does have a personal resonance for me, as in 1994 I was serving in Bosnia. I was on loan to the Foreign Office from the Army and I was looking after the British detachment in Sarajevo that was responsible for trying to secure the aid that flew into the city when it was under siege. Many Members have made the point that the world reacted a little late to the situation in Rwanda—we would all agree with that—and I suspect that part of the problem may have been that the world’s attention was focused on the Balkans and not on Africa.
	Let me deal with some of the contributions, starting with the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, who did a good job at the top of the debate of reminding us of the chilling events of 20 years ago and then drawing the lessons out in respect of the importance of R2P. Let me join others in wishing him well with his charity, thanking him for setting it up and congratulating him on that excellent initiative.
	The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) spoke movingly about the special relationship between Rwanda and the UK, giving us some valuable insights on the basis of his visit. I was struck by the positive impression he gave of the country, as others have done, and of its achievements since that awful process 20 years ago.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also gave us some personal impressions of the memorial site and talked about the events leading up to the genocide, the mass nature of it, the speed with which it happened and international inaction. He rightly draws lessons from that, but I fear that they are pretty regular lessons from conflicts of that sort right the way around the world. Indeed, one could have said many of the same things about the conflict in which I was involved in Bosnia. I agree with him that 20 years on is a very good time to encourage Rwandan society to use that experience to develop civil society.
	It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) speak and I would like to join him in praising the work of the Aegis Trust, as many others have done. He asked a question about the veto power; it is a good question and it is central to what might happen. That French proposal is part of a wider package and the wider debate on Security Council reform. He will doubtless be pleased to hear that I can assure him that the UK wholeheartedly supports the principle that the Security Council must act to stop mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. I am happy to put on the record the fact that I cannot envisage any set of circumstances—I have been thinking about this over the past hour—in which we would use a British veto to stop such an action. In a sense, the difficulty with the proposal was set out in the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree: the problem with reforming the United Nations is always getting the agreement of the five permanent members of the Security Council and agreement more generally. As we have seen on Syria, the likelihood is that any such initiative—clearly we have not yet put it to a vote—would attract a veto from other powers, but the principle is certainly correct.
	I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) in paying tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who really did introduce Rwanda to many of us. She made some excellent points about the development of its economy, and I loved the term “villagisation” and what she said about encouraging exports. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has been widely praised for his command of Swahili, made a good point about the BBC World Service, the impartial reporting by the BBC and the role the BBC played in bringing this conflict to the world’s attention. He is absolutely right about not forgetting the survivors and about the benefits of early intervention, and I thank him very much for the work he is undertaking with Project Umubano.
	I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on his work teaching business skills, because if we look at the economic figures in Rwanda, we see that he is clearly having a considerable effect very early on—the benefits of early intervention. He rightly talked about the importance of community engagement.
	The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) is entirely right about the lessons of 1994 and early engagement. I should love to be able to tell her confidently that the lesson has been learnt and the mistake will never be repeated, but, given the way in which the world works, I suspect that that would be over-confident. It could be argued, however, that the key driver in the intervention in the Libyan conflict was the threat of a massacre. She can take some comfort from the fact that people are now thinking in such terms, and that the work of R2P, and other work that is taking place, has made the international community much more focused on the issue than it was 20 years ago. I do not pretend that this is a perfect world, but I think that progress has been made.
	I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham for a very elegant summary, and for making the point about the
	Commonwealth. I agreed with everything he said, and I thank him not only for what he said, but for the way in which he said it.
	The events of 20 years ago were sufficiently important to this country for us to send both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for Africa to attend the genocide commemorations in Kigali on 7 April, to pay tribute to the victims and to demonstrate our commitment to Rwanda. I am delighted that so many members of the all-party group were there as well.
	In the past 20 years, Rwanda has made astonishing progress, and I use that word advisedly. Poverty levels have been lowered, the Rwandan economy continues to grow, and more and more Rwandans are finding work. Access to education has increased substantially, and girls are given the same access as boys.
	It should be a matter of some pride to us that this country has been Rwanda’s long-standing friend. We have been one of its development partners for many years, and we will continue to be a close partner. However, as many have acknowledged, there is much left to do. We will continue to urge the Rwandan Government to address human rights concerns such as freedom of expression, and to ensure that political space is opened. It is important for Rwanda to use its growing confidence to be a force for good in the region and on the international stage. We would have an extraordinarily positive legacy if it were to do that against the backdrop of the dreadful events of 20 years ago.

Brooks Newmark: I thank the Backbench Business Committee, and indeed the Leader of the House, for their support in enabling this important debate to take place in the main Chamber. I also thank Members in all parts of the House for their excellent contributions, and for sharing their respective experiences. I congratulate this Government and the last Government, especially the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, on their commitment to helping Rwanda on its path to recovery, and—this point was made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)—on welcoming Rwanda to the Commonwealth of Nations.
	As for those who died in 1994, we will remember them, and honour them, by reaffirming in the House today the words “Never again.”
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, when over the course of a 100-day period in 1994 at least 800,000 Rwandans were murdered; and calls on the Government to reinforce its commitment to the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and to working within the UN to promote international justice and to avoid mass atrocities which are still committed across the globe today.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION (COMMITTEES)

Ordered,
	That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Church of England, (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, HC 1273, which was laid before this House on 7 May, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

MANGO IMPORT BAN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to raise the important matter of European Union’s ban on the importation of Indian Alphonso mangos. I am very pleased to see so many Members in the Chamber, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the hon. Members for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). I think that that shows how much interest there is in the debate. I am also very pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is present. Although the title of this debate on the Order Paper is the “proposed” ban on EU imports, the ban has, in fact, already begun. It came into effect on 1 May 2014. The ban took place after I applied for this debate. The two events are not connected.
	The banning of the king of mangos was an unnecessary step and has caused huge anxiety for my constituents in Leicester, and it will also mean financial losses to British citizens, devastation to the livelihoods of Indian citizens and damage to our special relationship with India. It also raises constitutional issues about the relationship between this House and the European Commission.
	Discovered in India in about 1500, Alphonso mangos are unique. Not only are they produced in just one part of the world— India, and more particularly Maharashtra and Goa—but they have distinctive qualities. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’s view that these mangos can simply be replaced by another import is wrong. The extra-sweet taste makes this versatile fruit a key component in a wide range of dishes, including mango pulp, chutney, lassi, fruit salads, juices, smoothies, ice cream, mango birfi and many others. I must declare an interest at this point: I am a mango eater even though I have type 2 diabetes.

Pamela Nash: I would just like to add my support to the campaign and congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. I have just returned from Goa where I sampled the mangos first-hand.

Keith Vaz: I am delighted to hear that, and my hon. Friend did the right thing in eating mangos before she landed, or else she might have been arrested for eating them here.
	The United Kingdom is the mango’s true home in the EU as we are the largest importer of the fruit. In 2013 we consumed well over 56,000 tonnes of mangos, 4,800 tonnes of which came from India. That is 12 million mangos, which is equivalent in weight to 800 elephants.
	The ban will have a hugely damaging impact on our food industry with many businesses set to lose millions of pounds a year. Indeed the cost has been put as high
	as £10 million, and some have put it much higher. It will be particularly detrimental to the 1.4 million British Indians living in the UK.

Alok Sharma: Members in all parties want this issue to be addressed and resolved, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in doing so we need to safeguard industries, such as the salad crop industry in the UK, and make sure there is no adverse effect on them?

Keith Vaz: There are many salad crop growers in urban Reading, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would be keen to protect them. I can assure him that, as I will say in my speech, this has already been done.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he think this is another example of European Union bureaucracy and regulation going too far?

Keith Vaz: Yes.
	Leicester is the mango capital of Britain. Last year it hosted the first-ever mango festival in Cossington park in Belgrave in my constituency: four giant elephants dominated the scene and many hundreds of boxes of mangos were consumed. Retailers in Leicester have told me that they will face critical losses as a result of this decision and the situation will be repeated in other cities and towns in Britain, such as Manchester, Birmingham, and Southall, Tower Hamlets and Feltham in London.

Seema Malhotra: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate—and I think there will be competition with Hounslow in the future as to what is the mango capital of the UK. Last week, I met a number of businesses in my constituency at Western international market, including Fruity Fresh Ltd. They have raised with me great concerns about the effect this step will have on their incomes and stressed how much the mango crop contributes to their annual revenues. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a speedy response to this issue and that we must not just leave it until the end of next year? Does he also agree about the impact this could have on mango growers in India?

Keith Vaz: I agree, and I will set out an action plan to address the issue, which I hope the Government will follow.
	I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and in his response he stated that the reason for the ban was that plant pests and diseases, such as those intercepted in produce from India in recent years, could cause damage to recent salad crops, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). These pests included the tobacco whitefly.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has secured this debate and grateful that he has given way. He is right that Leicester is the mango capital, but may I say how disappointed I was last Friday and Saturday when I failed to find a mango on Evington road in my constituency? All the mangos had been snapped up. I know that many
	of my Leicester constituents are disappointed that they are going to miss out on mangos this season. Like me, does he hope that the Minister will take up this issue seriously and quickly, because the mango season lasts only 10 weeks?

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that it will not be a proper summer without mangos in Leicester. This is a serious issue that will affect many of our constituents.

Bob Blackman: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he not agree that one of the key issues is that discussions have taken place between the EU and India to ensure that our food imported from India is safe? There is an alternative route to ensuring that mangos are protected, that the right sort of products are imported and that everyone can feel confident that we will not get an invasion of fruit flies.

Keith Vaz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is an assiduous worker in his constituency, and I know how strongly he feels about this issue. I will set out what the Indian Government have done, which will include fresh information that arrived from India today.
	Let me go back to what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said. He was talking about pests, and said that they had been found in 207 consignments of fruit and vegetables from India imported into the EU in 2013. He went on to say that officials of the EU—this is pertinent to the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton North—voted unanimously at the end of March for a temporary ban on mangos, which is due to last until December 2015. The House should note that this was decided not by Ministers in this Government but by officials. I also heard from the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Shan Morgan, that the European Commission’s case is that this issue has been ongoing for four years and that India had repeatedly failed to make changes.
	Let us look at India’s case. Indian growers and importers will face closure, and for many Indian mango farmers, the ban will be devastating. The season in which mangos can be harvested is merely six weeks long. The ban came into force during the second week of this season, which is the peak time for growers and exporters in India, and it means millions of mangos may be left to rot. Today, exactly one week after the start of the ban, we can already see the repercussions of it, with mango prices plummeting in India to nearly half their usual sale price, because of the huge supply that can no longer be exported. That has a knock-on effect on the price of other mangos, and affects customer confidence in the products, which can have a continuous impact on sales, long after the end of the ban.
	Yesterday, I had a meeting with Sharad Pawar, the outgoing and distinguished Minister of Agriculture and Food Processing Industries in India, and he told me that the ban came as a shock to him because the EU delegation came to India on 1 April, looked at the fields and seemed satisfied with what it found. There was absolutely no indication of any problem. It then made a sudden announcement that the ban would come into force. I heard from him first hand about the effects on the people of Maharashtra, his home state.
	India has already used the techniques of vapour heat treatment or hot water dipping treatment on its exports to Australia, Japan and the US, where this product is not banned, so to do it for EU imports is a completely achievable feat. Today, I received a letter from the Department of Agriculture in India, following my meeting with the Minister yesterday. I was informed in great detail of the steps that India had taken following the audit report of the European Commission in April 2013. The report advised India of the need to take necessary measures to eliminate the potentially harmful organisms found in the crop. Virander Paul, the Indian deputy high commissioner, informed me of a letter sent from Anand Sharma, the Indian Minister for Commerce, Industry and Textiles, to EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht explaining how India has taken necessary steps and describing the ban as “surprising”. The Indian Department of Agriculture further informed me that not only had its systems, procedures and infrastructures improved, but it had increased the number of technical personnel in high risk areas. It had also introduced approved pack houses to ensure comprehensive inspection and certification.
	I was informed that there were some stray incidences of phytosanitary non-compliance, the number of which dropped by more than half since April last year and is steadily decreasing. The Indian authorities were even assured by officials in the Commission, in a report dated October last year, that their steps to improve phytosanitary controls were satisfactory. I must tell the House that I have heard anecdotally that this might be part of a wider EU plan for India to open its borders to further EU imports. When a delegation of Indian officials visited Brussels recently, they were told over lunch that if the EU can sort out the export of chocolate, cheese and whisky to India, they can definitely work out a solution for mangos. If that is the case, it is a plot that could easily feature in “House of Cards”. Incidentally, I have noted the Minister’s particular interest in cheese as a former chairman of the all-party group on cheese, and he has also championed his constituents in Cornwall on the issue of cheese, so he knows how important such food products are to local areas.
	The campaign to end the ban has come from the grassroots, and I want to pay tribute to those people in my constituency and beyond. A lot of excellent work is being done to overturn the ban and I commend the work of local people in my constituency, including Hasmukh Pabari; Darmesh Lakhani, president of the Belgrave residents and traders association; Joga Sandhu; Shahidullah Khan, the chairman of the Bangladeshi association); and Ratilal Patel. I would also like to mention Monica Bhandari from Fruity Fresh, who has worked hard petitioning and raising awareness of the issue. The online petition, which I hope the Minister has seen, has received well over 2,100 signatures in a short space of time, a figure that is increasing daily.

Andrew Bingham: The right hon. Gentleman pays tribute to many of his constituents who have raised this matter with him. Earlier in his speech, he listed the variety of uses for mangos that people take as read throughout their normal day-to-day lives. Does he, like me, think that many people are unaware of this issue because they do not know the impact it will have on the food they eat? By securing this
	debate today, on which I congratulate him, he is giving the subject the oxygen of publicity, which will mean that more people will realise the threat that we face.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I know that he is a great champion of South Asian food in his constituency. When he goes to his local Bangladeshi or Indian restaurant this weekend, he will see a pot of mango chutney that is diminishing and that will not be able to be replaced if the ban continues. He is right to raise the issue.
	I, along with representatives of retailers and importers of mangos—Monica Bhandari and Neil Chowdhry and Jagroop More and Sakivir More from Morfoods Ltd—delivered a tray of mangos to Downing street. I know that the hon. Member for Northampton North was lamenting the fact that he did not receive one—and no, Madam Deputy Speaker, you did not receive one either—but the fact was that we were getting near the ban and we had to get it to the Prime Minister so that he would have a proper understanding of the importance of the mangos.
	Fellow parliamentarians, some of whom are here today—this is a huge turnout for an Adjournment debate—have signed the early-day motion. Some have telephoned my office, some asking to support the campaign and some to ask where to buy mangos. I have written to the European Commission as part of the campaign and will be taking a delegation to Brussels soon to speak to the Health Commissioner, Tonio Borg. When one rings Brussels, one finds that quite a lot of the commissioners are on annual leave or away—they are out of station—so I have not been able to talk to any of them, but we will seek them, find them and talk to them about this. I have also contacted India and have been told that the timing of the ban is problematic not only because it has come into force two weeks into the season, but because India is in the middle of a general election.
	This calamitous series of events endangers our special relationship with India. The UK is one of India’s largest trading partners, with India’s exports to Britain worth around $4.1 billion annually—the eighth largest amount exported to a single country. Banning imports of mangos, a significant industry for India, may affect the UK’s wider relationship with India. Our Prime Minister, like successive Prime Ministers, is the champion of the UK’s special relationship. The Prime Minister has visited India four times during his term—more than any other Prime Minister in a similar period—and before that he visited on many occasions. Yesterday in the House I reminded him that next week the election will be over, and he will be speaking to the new Indian Prime Minister. It is essential that we are able to offer the incoming administration an action plan to get the ban reversed. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister understands the issue, and I hope the conversation next week proves fruitful; but the issue is, does DEFRA understand, and will it be prepared to follow the action plan?
	The ban affects every constituency in the UK. The vast majority of hon. Members will have in their constituency a retailer of mangos in some form or another, who will have their livelihood affected, and absolutely all of us, including in Epping Forest, will have constituents who like mangos. The Brussels sprouts have decided to take on the mighty mango. I know whose side I am on.
	We need an immediate action plan from DEFRA that will reverse this painful and unnecessary decision. The EU has treated an important trading ally, which represents a sixth of the population of the globe, with disrespect. Britain is India’s best friend in the EU and we need to do much more. It was a British presidency that initiated the first ever EU-India summit in June 2000. I was privileged, as the then Minister for Europe, to be involved in a very small way. We have a responsibility, as a Government, to make sure that the ban is resolved, and as a Parliament to scrutinise the decisions—the wrong decisions—of the EU. If we do not act now, in my view we will regret this for ever.

Dan Rogerson: I join others in congratulating the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on securing this debate on what I know is an issue of great importance to him and his constituents. I thank him for consistently raising that important issue in every way possible over the past few weeks. We are talking, of course, of the ban on the import of five fruit and vegetable species from India into the European Union, but of mangos in particular.
	Let me start by reminding the House that this Government have made safeguarding plant health one of DEFRA’s top priorities. Plants are an essential economic, environmental and social resource for our rural economy, heritage and well-being. The total value of UK crop output in 2010 was £7.54 billion and the annual value of the glasshouse sector, which I shall come to later, is more than £320 million. Of course, the protection of trees and other plants in the wider environment is vital to our continued well-being.
	We are all aware of the damage that continues to be caused by the arrival in the UK in 2012 of Chalara fraxinea, the organism that causes ash dieback. That disease and the Government’s response to it prompted a review of our approach to plant health and to the risk posed by pests and diseases to our agriculture, forestry and the wider environment. The review made various recommendations, including the appointment of a new chief plant health officer and the creation and implementation of a prioritised risk register. As part of the increased focus on plant health we have just published a new plant biosecurity strategy. That has been developed in consultation with interested parties in the industry, conservation bodies and others and will help to drive our work on plant health in the years to come. The strategy stresses the importance of preventing the introduction of new pests and diseases—by tackling pests at the border through import inspections, for example, and by working proactively with overseas exporters. Phase 1 of the risk register, which includes around 700 pests and diseases, is already in place.
	Let me be clear. We understand and regret the impact of the ban on businesses importing mangos and other products from India. Mangos are one of five fruit and vegetable species banned by the European Commission from import. The others are aubergines, momordica or bitter gourd, snake gourd and patra leaves. Those five species are those on which the highest number of insect pests was recorded in import inspections by EU member states.
	Most of the interceptions were made by the Food and Environment Research Agency’s plant health and seeds inspectors, many at London’s Heathrow airport. For the past couple of years, India has topped the list of countries from where consignments with pests present have been intercepted during such inspections. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, because most EU imports from India come to the United Kingdom, our inspectors have inevitably found the most pests from India.
	The pests found on these fruit and vegetables pose a threat to glasshouse production in the UK and across the EU. Bitter gourds carry Thrips palmi, and patra leaves carry tobacco whitefly. These pests carry more than 100 viruses which could threaten production of UK salad crops. Were the fruit flies found with the mangos even temporarily to establish, they could undermine the UK’s pest status for our own exports.
	The European Commission’s auditors, the Food and Veterinary Office, visited India, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in both 2010 and 2013 to find out why there were so many findings of pests and diseases in produce coming into the EU, and into Britain in particular. The auditors identified major shortcomings with the export certification system. Their comments after the second visit concluded that
	“at present, the system of export controls for plant health in India, and, in particular at the main point of exit for fresh produce exported to the EU (Mumbai airport), offers no assurance with regard to the pest status of consignments or compliance with the EU import requirements, or relevant international standards. Unless the significant shortcomings are addressed the risk of introduction of harmful organisms on plant products exported from India to the EU remains high.”

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Dan Rogerson: Happily. This is an important point.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for his introduction. Prior to this debate did he, as Minister at the Department responsible for this matter, see the memorandum that was prepared by the Indian Government, which I referred to today, or see any information from the Indian Government about what they have done? He has quoted from the EU, but the Indian Government are very clear that they have acted to deal with all these issues. Did he see any of that information before the ban was imposed?

Dan Rogerson: Direct ministerial responsibility belongs to my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, who takes the lead on these issues. As he clearly cannot reply to a debate in this House, I am doing so today. The point that I was seeking to make with that quote was in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s contention that the Government of India saw the process as a surprise. They should not have done, because the information was clear.

Keith Vaz: I accept that the Minister is in the other place, but the hon. Gentleman has prepared for this debate. Did Ministers see the submission from the Indian Government before the vote of officials on 28 March in Brussels? Parliament was not told about this and there seems to be no communications strategy coming out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is rather like the floods, which seemed suddenly to have arrived on DEFRA’s doorstep. If the Minister
	does not know the answer today, will he write to me and tell me whether any Minister saw the submission from the Indian Government before the ban took place?

Dan Rogerson: I am happy to undertake to respond to the right hon. Gentleman in writing on that specific point. The issue is not just what steps the Indian Government have been taking to deal with matters at source; it is also whether the trend in interceptions was declining or increasing. In April this year there were seven interceptions, two of which were of mangos. There were eight instances of missing or incomplete phytosanitary certificates, which is highly significant if we are to have confidence in the system, as I know the right hon. Gentleman would want, and there were 11 instances of wood packing material not complying with requirements. The right hon. Gentleman’s contention earlier was that the Government in India have a handle on this issue and therefore we are seeing a steep decline. That is not the experience immediately prior to the decision being taken, and that is what informed the vote. It is that evidence that was used at that point.

Michael Ellis: Is it right that Brussels bureaucrats made the decision, or were Ministers of the Crown seized of the matter?

Dan Rogerson: Representatives of all member Governments of the European Union would have input into that decision, and the UK Government strongly supported tight security in this area, for the reasons that I established a short time ago.
	Despite that conclusion, the Indian authorities’ recognition of the problems and their undertaking to address them, the number of pests found in produce imports continued to rise during 2013. There have been 20 interceptions of pests in Indian produce coming into the UK in 2014 alone. When the situation was explained to the EU Plant Health Standing Committee, which is chaired by the European Commission and attended by all member states, there appeared little option, if further introductions of pests were to be prevented, but to send a strong signal by banning the import of the products presenting the greatest risk.
	India is not being singled out. The Commission has taken similar action in the past, for example in respect of potatoes from Egypt and, more recently, citrus from South Africa—a significant crop in that country’s exports. Other countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam, have introduced voluntary export bans when confronted with the possibility of an EU ban. That approach has been successful, because the number of pests found from those countries has been much lower after trade has opened up again.

Bob Blackman: Will the Minister give way?

Dan Rogerson: I am afraid that I need to make some progress.
	Hon. Members will be aware that the EU’s plant health law is currently being reviewed. That is due to recognition that the existing law has proved an inadequate tool in the face of increasing international trade and the thousands of pests and diseases that have the potential to be introduced into Europe, threatening our cultivated and wild plants. Negotiations on the revision of the plant health law are now under way and the resulting legislation is likely to include a greater focus on excluding
	trades that are shown to be pathways for pests and diseases. It is those threats that have prompted the European Commission, with the support of member states—that is the crucial point—to take a more pro-active role in challenging third countries that consistently send pests with the goods they export into the European Union. That pro-active approach with India has prompted the temporary import ban.
	I must also mention the international situation. The UK, along with 180 other countries, including India, is a signatory to the international plant protection convention. The point of the IPPC is to prevent pests and diseases of plants from moving around the world, particularly as a result of trade, because of the impact they have when they arrive in a new country. All member countries have responsibilities to prevent pests and diseases moving in trade and so agree to respect other countries’ import requirements. For plants and plant products, that is achieved by issuing a phytosanitary certificate in which the national authority declares that the plants or plant products being sent conform to the importing country’s requirements. The fact that there are numerous instances of pests being found in the Indian products in question shows that the UK and EU’s import requirements are not being met.
	I stress that the ban agreed is not permanent. India has had long-term bans on its mango exports to the USA and Japan. By requiring exports to be treated, either by irradiation or by vapour heat treatment, it has managed to overturn those bans. New Zealand also accepts mangos from India that have been subject to vapour heat treatment. If India can take such action in respect of exports to the EU and demonstrate to the Commission and the Governments of EU member states that pest-free trade is possible, I hope that an early reconsideration of the import ban is possible.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Minister has admitted that the Government support the ban for the scientific reasons he has outlined. Given that many businesses in Leicester and in the constituencies represented in the Chamber today will be adversely affected financially, are the Government prepared to consider any support for those businesses that will lose out this summer?

Dan Rogerson: Clearly the Government’s responsibility, as part of the European Union, is to ensure that we protect our borders from imports that could threaten domestic production. We want to support everyone in overturning the ban as soon as we are confident that the export standards are being met. The right hon. Member for Leicester East is keen to see the Government take action. Clearly the key action resides with the exporters, in their ability to demonstrate that what they are exporting meets the criteria that we need to have confidence in. As soon as we have a clear message that things are improving, I and my ministerial colleagues will be happy to press the European Union to have an early re-inspection so that we can get the ban overturned. We know how important mangos, and indeed other species, are for cultural and economic reasons, as has been pointed out. We want to see them back, but we have to do that in the proper way.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is being generous with his time. I am pleased by what he said about early inspection, so will he confirm that the Government, as the best friend of India in the EU, will push for an early inspection?

Dan Rogerson: Clearly we want to build on our very strong relationship with India. We want to ensure that the inspection takes place when progress has been made. The last thing we want is for a lack of progress to lead to the ban being extended unnecessarily. We want to see action from the industry to reassure the Commission and all member states that progress has been made, and I am sure that officials and Ministers from this Government will then work closely to secure a re-inspection and have the ban overturned, so that everyone can enjoy the produce from India that they love and that the right hon. Gentleman, regardless of his particular health situation, is clearly missing a great deal.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.